Linux is Not Red Hat 317
Vox wrote in to send
us a link to a feature that appears over at Linux Today. The
article is called
Linux is not Red Hat
and describes the fears that a growing number of the old
school Linux users have been expressing lately. Specifically
it talks about MetroWorks deciding to only support Red Hat
for their CodeWarrior for Linux release.
Re:Am I missing something? (I'm missing it too :) (Score:1)
Only if the product were deliberately crippled to work *only* on RH would this resemble MS tactics. As it is, it may work just fine with any distribution that the user is willing to support himself.
And, lacking evidence to the contrary, I wouldn't assume that RH had anything to do with this "exclusive" arrangement. I, for one, have not noticed any such anti-social pattern in RH's behavior.
SUPPORT! (Score:1)
A good chunk of the linux community has been wanting commercial software for a while. What did you think was going to happen? Companies that have the vast majority of their current customer base running other OSes were going to train all of their support staff to a level where they can help any linux user running any combination of software/kernal/libraries? This just doesn't make economic sense for the company trying to sell the software. I would guess that if a company does well with redhat as an officially supported platform, that they would eventually start supporting other well developed platforms like debian or caldera as well.
My $0.02 anyway.
/dev
No RH bashing (Score:1)
sentimental reasons. I just don't like the RH distro.
But I bet I can get the codewarrior to work with some symlinks and a glibc2.1 compile. I've got an slack distro ported half to gilb2 just for the citadel BBS (Nice!) so I know how to do it.
I mean, they can *say* it's for redhat only, but it's just a little work to adapt it to your distro
of choice.
Extending LSB to include marketing... (Score:1)
for requirements
...This products requires library XXX and XXX, and has been tested and know to work on distro X and Y.
This avoids the balikanization that people are worried about and still provides for companies that do not want to test all distros...and it provides the info needed to make it work on an non-compliant system (ie symling this library to here, whatever)....the same can be used to cover propriatory software in a distro, IE they should be clearly and consistandly labeled. Propriatory software isn't evil, but it should be treated carefully when working with open software.
As for distros, there is obviously too much paranoia going on here, but there is some basis for it. Redhat, to their credit, has played the game correctly, releasing all software under the GPL et all. But they are growing very powerful, which undermines the traditional strenght of Linux (and also its greatest weakness), which is its distrubuited nature. I respect redhat, but I wont use their product, despite their good behavior, because I fear this growing hegemony....other than that I wish them the best...
Apologies if this repeats other comments, I don't have the time to go through all responses.
unhappy with gcc's error msg? Try Visual C++'s (Score:1)
Yea, well they arnt evil, just a company (Score:2)
My opinion? if you want to be someone using a "different" os , use FreeBSD. I think we need a healty amount of different operating systems as main stream , so we never get another MS
Re:Exclusive! (Score:1)
Talk about a severe conflict of interest.
sound and fury (Score:1)
Linux has shown itself to be a very capable platform. We who would prefer not to ride the MS bus can only benefit from the continued success of Linux. Open Source is a good thing for the OS, and is essential IMHO to its continued success. It is not, however, essential that every tool which runs on the platform be open source.
Religious fervor is best kept in religious contexts, or even dispensed with altogether.
I can understand that MetroWerks may need to limit their full testing to a single distribution, for simple economic reasons. The likelihood of their tools being compatible with other major distros remains high, as long as the library levels are compatible.
The key is that they are saying they cannot certify that it will run on more than one distro. Perhaps instead of screaming in indignation, some of the energetically agitated might wish to consider that this problem will arise again and again, and that there seems to be a need for an independent certification group to resolve the problem.
Such a group, like the developers of Linux, could be staffed with volunteers. In the case of compilers, a common test suite could be assembled; for other types of tools, the testing may not need such rigor.
If the diversity of distributions is to be fostered, I think that such a group is absolutely required.
As to whether MetroWerks should be boycotted, it seems a silly thing to do. We buy tools according to our preferences. That's the beauty of a free market.
Let's try to be constructive, folks, and proactive. And let's waste less bandwidth on mindless rants and polemics.
Re:Who needs CodeWarrior? (Score:1)
What the Red Hat label means is that Metrowerks has thoroughly tested CW for Linux with RedHat so that is the official support. Look for it to support other distro's in the future.
That said, yes it's a port of the IDE. Yes, it has it's quirks. But quite frankly, it will get better. It will look better. just be patient people!! the product will mature as time progresses.
Now, WHO is CW for Linux for? The newbie Linux user who came from another GUI environment (Mac OS or Windows) and is not familiar with vi or emacs as an IDE. Second, the user who uses CW on other GUI environments and wants to port the code easily (the project files are completely multi-platform compatible) ie: john carmack. And Finally the user who wants a GUI IDE to do development as a front-end to the GCC tools. If you don't fall into that category, that's fine. Use what you like and feel comfortable with. No one is forcing you to use an IDE.
Lastly, Metrowerks will be releasing their Professional edition of their Linux IDE later this year (check the website for details). It will use their compilers instead of GCC and also includes JAVA tools.
Re:So Carmack doesn´t know what he´s doing then?;) (Score:1)
But to even compare someone as great as Carmack to Microsoft is just nuts! Look at all the time he has spent buggin Mac about their systems and finally they got a clue and updated. Sure you might not like Macs but the more competion between operating systems the better because they can only take ground from Microsoft there is not much left to lose.
--MD--
Schism=Bad (Score:1)
I guess I still do, supporting one Linux Distro makes it that much easier to support other Linux distros.
I hope that ISVs will realize that supporting only one Distro is bad for their linux investment. If they help balkanize the market then the market will not grow as fast as it could, making their upside considerably less than it could be.
Re:MetroWerks Compiler Sucks for x86 (Score:1)
The default behavior of recursively searching #include trees is the same for CW on Mac and Windows and Linux. Nothing surprising here. You can change that just by clicking the recursive search icon and provide an exact path to the include directory. It's that easy. Have you read the manual? It sounds like you're ranting on about things you've experienced but all this information is provided in the manual. You might want to read it.
Lastly, CW has a plug-in architecture. Their Plug-in API is publically available. If you want to write your own compiler to plug into the CW IDE, go for it! If other people want to do it, go for it! nothing's stoping you from doing that and MW encourages such action.
As for the mwcc command line arguments, I can't speak there as I don't use those tools.
You can never be right (or success is wrong) (Score:1)
I always thought that Linux was about choice. It appears that when it comes to Linux, it is OK to have choice available, but when you actually *make* that choice, you can never be right, and more and more people are beginning to notice that.
So people choose to use RedHat. So RedHat is successful. So they make tons of money. So what's the big deal?
I am not saying that RedHat is the greatest or the best - but I do sit up and take notice when my clients insist that "if at all Linux, then RedHat". That's quite a switch from the "Linux - are you kidding?" attitude from just last year!
Sure, it may be because RedHat advertises, and spends money pushing the product. But does that make them bad?
People keep dissing RH for "doing things differently". But tell me, dear people, aren't all the distros doing that? Is the layout of Debian identical to Slackware's? Is SuSE's layout the same as Caldera's? Is Debian's packaging the same as Stampede's? Why can I not install a
The fact that a package is "designed for RedHat Linux" has its roots in both RedHat's visibility, as well as the fact that since every distro does things differently (read as "non-standard"), it makes sense to stick with the one having the greatest visibility and/or acceptance.
Everyone keeps talking about "RH is successful only because of its massive commercial push". But no one highlights the fact that most of the RedHat installations are either through anonymous FTP or CheapBytes CDs - something that RH makes no money off. RH is so popular not because of "commercial seduction" or "the lemmings effect" - it is the simple fact that people seem to like RH's distro!
Strangely enough, every scriptkiddy under the sun will yell from the rooftop that "Linux is about the right to choose!", but when people actually *exercise* that right to choose (resulting in a success like that experienced by RH) they will be verbally castrated, and their choice ridiculed as "the next Microsoft".
Whether this is the "underdog syndrome" or just plain stupidity - it reeks of hippocracy and sour grapes, and I fear that it will be the primary weapon that will be used against Linux in the very near future.
People in meatspace have enough problems understanding the concept of Open Source - try and make them understand this one (with due apologies to Henry Ford):
"You may choose any color you want - as long as it is not the most popular one".
:-\
In my opinion, yes (Score:1)
As long as rpm isn't standard I get highly offended by rpm only packages. No problem with tar-files because it works for everyone (and has existed forever). And rpm will never be standard, because it is inferior to deb.
Re:SUPPORT! (Score:1)
I'm afraid that I don't see what about a device driver is distribution-specific. How many times do we have to say it? Linux is Linux. Aside from the various versions of libc (Red Hat has used all of them during its lifetime), what, really is the difference, from a device-driver's point of view?
Where do people get the idea that distributions are platforms of their own, anyway? Seriously, get over the paranoia. If your libs are there, then you're okay. If your kernel is there, and you can detect certain other binaries you need, the world really isn't that strange.
Gads, you people make it sound like we're back in the PDP days.....
The following sentence is true.
The previous sentence is false.
Re:And? (Score:1)
I usually hate to write the "Me too!" type posts...but damn...your post rocked!
That is the attitude that the Linux community needs...not this..."look at evil company X...they aren't supporting *my* distro...they suck!"
Preach on Brother!
Re:You Got What You Wanted... (Score:1)
Yes, that's what we want. That's what we will get. We must insist on it. There is *no reason* why a mainstream os may not also be open and free.
So don't buy it. I won't. (Score:1)
I use RedHat 5.2 Linux and was going to buy a copy of CodeWarrior until you decided to *not* support other distributions. Other people I work with use Debian, Slackware, SuSE, and Caldera. There are other distros as well, but if you are going to participate in the kind of balkanization that cripples the major Unix platforms I feel I have no choice but to keep looking for another vendor's solution.
Should you decide to support (at least) the other major distributions I will reconsider my decision.
not so bad (Score:1)
Some people make their own luck (Score:1)
I was reacting to the premise of the editorial more than the reality of the current situation. While Codewarrior does run on other distributions, it is entirely conceivable that at some future point, we will see proprietary software that runs on only one distribution. Such fragmentation is simply not possible with free software, because the users can modify software without any commercial support.
Commercial support is a blessing. Proprietary software that needs commercial support in order to be useful is a curse. Whether or not to take one, or the other, both, or neither, is a complex decision involving many tradeoffs. However, I am convinced that fragmentation of Linux will lead to its death. So, for me, one point in favor of free software is that incompatible fragmentation is impossible. That's all.
Re:Exclusive! (Score:1)
I highly doubt CodeWarrior will not work on debian, slackware, suse, caldera, or any other distribution with the required libraries. MetroWorks isn't stupid. They just won't support a different distribution to run it on. Same goes for almost any other commercial software, it goes trough quality assurance for one particular platform (which happens to be RedHat on Linux, since they seem to have the largest userbase, or the highest profile), and only support that. It may or may not run on a different distribution, since they have not tested that.
Anyways, that's my rambling about this particular topic, you can agree or not, I'll stand by it.
Bas Vermeulen
And? (Score:2)
We should not fear the presence of commercial software, but rather revel in it as it gives Open Source the opportunity to prove how much better it is. We do believe that, don't we?
If a commercial vendor shows up with some restrictive license or policy, is it their fault that our choice is restricted? Or is it our fault because we chose to whine and complain about it rather than provide a better alternative for ourselves? Freedom goes both ways, and they are free to support you or to leave you behind, just as you are free to buy their product or to come up with an alternative.
We have the choice. The GPL ensures that we will always have the choice. That doesn't mean that freedom will be handed to us on a silver platter. MetroWerks has just as much right to support a single distro as we have to support them all. We shouldn't restrict their freedom by enforcing our notion of freedom.
Lately, it seems that the Open Source notion of freedom is that everyone should be free to do only what we think they should do. We need to lose that attitude quickly, and start competing on the basis of our technical and philosophical superiority. Does it make any sense that we preach freedom and procede to rant that everyone should be restricted to the GPL?
Wake up, people! Stop whining and get to work! I've seen the enemy and the enemy is us.
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
So I was, after a while, sick of having to spend hours finding and downloading an obscure library slackware didn't include that some other distro did, and sick of fixing things in programs that didn't work with my system for some reason or another (when the make process for a package I really wanted came up with a bunch of compile time errors (not warnings), I could often fix them with 2 to 7 hours of effort (average)). I heard about the holy grail of typing "rpm -i package.rpm" and having it just work immediately sounded pretty damn cool. And I knew that my experience of using rpm on slackware was less than perfect, so I wanted to get a real Red Hat system - they were, after all the market leader, and I wanted them to be the best. So I got a copy from a friend, and installed it.
I later regretted this move. For one thing, Red Hat uses the init scripts with the folder for every runlevel, and S09SERVICE links and such. I know some people like it, and I even know that my SuSE system I use now uses it by default, but one of the things I really didn't like about red hat at first was the switch from slackware's simple single level rc.d directory with a series of text files to initialize different parts of the system.
The next big problem was linuxconf. I don't know how it's version number got to the 0.9x's, because the version I used was not, in my opinion, suitable for an alpha quality release. Practically _NONE_ of the functions I tried to use to administrate my system worked. I'm talking important, basic things like adding users and groups, changing network settings, etc... I couldn't believe Red Hat would put such a useless tool in the center of it's admin interface. I wanted to use shell scripts - and I'm sure there probably were some I could use - but the names I knew from slackware didn't work, and I didn't know where else to look (All my linux knowledge came from slackware experience at that point). Then RPM came crashing down - sure, it was nice to be able to type "rpm -i gimp-0.91.rpm", but that lost it's appeal when the latest development versions failed to appear as RPMs. Sure, I could do a plain old source compile and install, but that would break my system's rpm-purity. It was an annoying feeling to have to worry if rpm's database was up to date in addition to worrying if my actual system was up to date. I couldn't believe rpm didn't have some graceful way to cover this situation (typing --nodeps for the rest of your system's life is NOT graceful), at least not a well documented one. I read everything I could find, even a large portion of Maximum RPM, but no solution presented itself. RPMs were not so cool after all, I had to start doing source compiles. I am not the type of linux user who is interested in only using old stuff.
SRPMS didn't work for me at ALL, by the way.
When I needed to install a newer gimp, turned out I also had to install a newer GTK. And this newer gtk conflicted with the rpm gtk I had installed (no rpm available for the new one, of course), so I had to -erase the old one. Installing the compiled gtk did not stop the warnings when I tried to install any package that depended on gtk. This pattern occured with many a package, and I got accostumed to typing --nodeps. What the hell was the point of having rpm if I didn't use it's dependencies? My system's combination of rpm-based programs and compiled programs resisted eachother and I eventually couldn't deal with their fighting, the linuxconf fiasco, my printing problems, and my general feeling that Red Hat had just downloaded a bunch of crap off the net and put it on a cd without testing it even once from a new user's perspective. I missed slackware. But I felt like trying other distros.
To make a long story short (I'm late for class), SuSE had the best combination of actually working as advertised (try YaST! it is excellent compared to every other (linux) admin tool I've tried) and having a higher level of control than slackware.
Re:I think you're missing the point. (Score:1)
Every Microsoft program I've ever used has been a bloated resource hog that constantly crashed.
I had the Arcade Pak for Win3.1. Asteroids, Battlezone, Centipede, Missile Command, and most importantly, Tempest. They ran in 4MB of core, didn't seem particularly bloated, and didn't crash that I can remember. (:
MetroWorks Respose Form /.ed (Score:1)
The heat be on
done.
Re:Lets Boycott RedHat (Score:1)
Re:articles like this = destructive (Score:2)
I read everything I need to know about you in the first sentence or two == "I am not a Linux user."
End of story. Your opinion means shit.
It's people like you that are the biggest problems for the Linux community.
I'm just going to chime in here quick, I'm not a regular poster, but I read posts here quite often; that is, when it's possible to wade through all the trolls, and anonymous cowards with immature posts such as the above.
If
Did you even bother to read his post? He points out some very good, very good facts. He had the honesty and decency to point out he doesn't use Linux himself because it doesn't work for him. He deserves praise for that, not your kind of shit. He's got more balls than you'll ever have kiddo.
Put aside the fact that he uses windows for a moment and read what he said, and understand well what he said. The kind of mentality some people show around here is exactly why he is right, and exactly what people who want to see Linux fail, need. You're providing it for them with your elitist attitude.
Linux is not about usurping Microsoft's power and demolishing it as a valid marketable OS. If it was, Linux would be no better than MS itself, and all of you who would like to see it do as such, would be doing so in vain. You'd be creating exactly what you allegedly didn't like. I believe Linux is about providing alternatives to what is currently dominating the market. I think it's doing a good job of providing just that.
You, are taking all of that, and in one small post, supporting the exact opposite.
You're last line alone shows plainly you're without a clue. He wasn't defending the act, he was pointing out the fact that the reaction to it is an even more serious problem.
Throughout how many hundred posts here, I've seen one or two people provide possible solutions and courses of action that could be taken to rectify this situation with little or no backlash. Yet the rest of you just bitch and bitch, and make matters worse.
Wake up and smell the coffee, you people are going to be bigger problems for Linux than MetroWerks (sp?) and RedHat could ever be.
--
Mark Waterous (mark@revision3.com)
Re:kinda makes ya wonder... (Score:1)
Re:articles like this = destructive (Score:1)
SO the guy isn't a linux user. So what? He makes a great point that was well thought out and took alot of his time to type it.
rant? hardly. you're the one ranting. He was very calm and rational and logical.
So he uses windows. so what? it works for him.
clue: Many people who use Windows are very intelligent people.
Personally, I have no problem with Windows as a "recreational" OS for playing games and such. I dislike the company that makes it, and I despise thier business practices, but the OS is not evil in and of itself.
OPEN YOUR EYES, PEOPLE.
Red Hat CANNOT PULL MICROSOFT TRICKS. Everything in RedHat Linux is GPLed!
Re:Lets Boycott RedHat (Score:1)
Got another one?
Re:Paranoia can be a useful thing. (Score:1)
But that's the rub though, isn't it? I don't have a problem with discussions about what kind of actions should be taken if our worst fears are realized. But in the mean time, there really isn't any good reason to trash RedHat for anything beyond the "I hate RedHat because of feature/bloatware/glibc/package x." (Which, by the way, I think are legitimate complaints.)
The only reason people are going after RH is because it's been successful. I would bet that if debian were the popular distribution right now, people would be going after debian in exactly the same way. This kind of bickering isn't constructive, it's destructive to the linux movement as a whole and hurtful to the guys at RedHat who have worked hard to make RedHat what it is (whether you like RH or not).
Until we have hard proof that RH is doing anything really wrong (aside from being successful), I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Re:The Real Answer: use only real Open Source (Score:1)
Any unfortunately, usually the people who run those 'other distributions' get so upset at the product being incompatible that they write their own open-source version of it... and make it 10x better.
Normally doesn't matter (Score:1)
Re:Lessons I've learned... (Score:1)
Then again, if you personally must have the version that's "technically the best," it will always be available. You can't "smash the competition" in Linux. Shoot, some other distros are already working with no money or off pocket change. What can Red Hat do to them? Red Hat grossed about $10 million last year, Microsoft grossed that much since I started writing this.
This is a different business. Forget everything you know about proprietary software, it doesn't apply to this stuff. That's what we like about it, remember?
IDE (Score:2)
-E
Re:Cygnus GnuPro Toolkit (Score:1)
So on this point, Cygnus isn't very different from MetroWerks. At least they supply source code with their tools...
--
Re:articles like this = destructive (Score:1)
It would be so easy for someone to do what you described, especially with the knee-jerk reactionaries that post to this page....
I think hedrick might be in the employ of MS, he was SO FAST to try to discredit you..
-geekd
Look people, THINK before you spread rumors and repeat "facts" that may or may not be true.
yet corel on debian doesn't upset anyone... (Score:1)
Re:We are being swallowed (Score:1)
It's not like the software you used 5 years ago is gone. There just are more options. Personally, I'd rather have the choice of a lot of applications, some free some proprietary, and then select those I *want* to use than to be foreced into using what's there. It's all about choice when you think about it, it's just that some slashdot weenies seem to value choice no more than microsoft.
Re:I'm changing distribution (Score:1)
Come on people! (Score:1)
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
RedHat would be even sillier to enter more deals 'X for RedHat Linux'. I can only think of two reasons that would definitely force me to switch from RedHat: (a) if they pull some technical crap that makes their distro clearly inferior to others (b) if they pull some marketing crap that tries to dominate the distro market not on technical merit but incompatible lockins.
Then again, as Joe Average I'm probably no longer in the market segment that RedHat is after. Any attempt at balkanizing Linux will kill RedHat's longterm viability, they will be sawing on the branch they're sitting on. And the Linux community is much more vigilant than the Windows community was when Microsoft succeeded in locking everybody into their product. If RedHat tries, they will face outrage, boycotts etc. way before their strategic moves could benefit them.
RedHat would be very well advised to avoid even the appearance of trying to corner the distro market. 'CodeWarrior for RedHat Linux' is a PR disaster at best.
kinda makes ya wonder... (Score:2)
What is the _Real_ agreement between RedHat and Metrowerks...
and how long until the different distributions start becoming incompatible with each other... sure people could just port the apps over, but how long until some of the OS _isn't_ open source anymore...?
FlameBait -1 (Score:1)
LSB might not be but FHS is (Score:2)
follow it. Since all indications are that
LSB will encompass the FHS, I see no
reason why. Locations of XF86Config very from
dist to dist and there is no reason.
If LSB is not here yet, demand support for FHS.
It's a step in the right direction.
Re:Ditto (Score:1)
Oh super. So we'll end up with a symlink-riddled filesystem like latter versions of Solaris.
Re:We are being swallowed (Score:1)
Re:Ditto (Score:1)
Only if you Slackware Users choose not to get your act together and adopt the things everybody else is using. If you guys don't want to, then quit bitching.
Big Deal (Score:1)
IDE's are for clueless gumbies.
Redhat Linux is for clueless gumbies.
I think it's a good match. And I praise Redhat for taking the time to keep software real hackers don't need, and users real hackers don't want to deal with, away from the distributions real hackers use.
Let Redhat pitch themselves at Microsoft, let their users think Linux is the alternative to Microsoft. The real hackers know Microsoft don't even enter the equation.
Bandwidth (Score:1)
Also, I'm not entirely sure I want every application I install to come with custom scripts which fsck around with my main system libraries, thankyou very much.
That said, some versions of the Blackdown JDK did come with their own set of libraries. And I must admit that back in the bad old days it did seem to help. Hopefully we're past needing that now though.
Paranoia is a dangerous thing (Score:1)
Come on folks! One guy starts spouting off about RedHat making exclusive contracts when there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that this has happened, nor has there EVER been any indication from RedHat that they were interested in making any exclusive deals with anyone. Has anyone read any of the interviews and various articles with/from Bob Young?! Young, has stated several times that RedHat's intensions were not along these lines, and has given several good reasons for why RedHat couldn't get away with this kind of stunt even if they wanted to. If we have a bone to pick with anyone, it's Metroworks, not RedHat.
Frankly I think we need to take a good look at ourselves to see if we aren't suffering from paranoia. Think about it, we've been dealing with monopolistic technology companies for so long that the second one of our own starts to become successful, it automatically must mean that they are monopolistic too! Get Real!
I, for one, am not concerned about RedHat. If such things as RH is being accused of actually occur, most of us will move to another distro so fast it will make Bob Young's head spin...and he know's it.
Other companies targeting a specific distribution is cause for concern, but until the LSB gets out the door and people adhere to it, this is the kind of thing we're going to get. What else would you expect!?
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
RPMs aren't magic, and they are *not* required for adding software to a RedHat box. But if you want to mix and match installation methods, you really need to know what your system is doing during those installations. Bypassing RPMs is like extracting an archive on WinXX instead of running the installer -- things get missed, but can be dealt with manually if you're patient enough and not afraid of the registry editor. (Of course with a Wintendo game system it's unstable no matter how you install the software, but that's an irrelevant rant...)
Stability? I don't know what people are complaining about. I haven't had any stability problems at all, just the occasional config error (always been my own fault.) After many years of working with production *nix systems, it's usually easy to tell whether I've encountered a stability problem or if I've just screwed something up. 99% of the time it's my fault, not the system's.
I'm quite certain I could screw up any distro by installing software in unexpected locations, forgetting a few symlinks, or otherwise botching the procedures. I don't try to blame the vendor for those problems -- if it worked out of the box and I broke it, there's no one to blame except the guy sitting in my chair.
Re:The problem is that Codewarrior isn't open sour (Score:1)
Their claims of not being able to support 39 distributions insipres absolutely no confidence in me. There is no way in hell I would pay for a product that is so poorly supported that its open source competitors look good in comparison.
A commercial company's idea of support is different than the open source idea of support. People have a number of expectations with a piece of commercial software that they do not have with a piece of GPL software. For example, just because Perl is "supported" in Debian does not mean that Larry Wall is knowledgable about how to make a .deb package, or how to get Perl to compile on a Debian system. It just means that someone on the net has managed to compile, and perhaps make a .deb package for a single version of Perl. It doesn't mean that the particular 5.00X release you need to make all your scripts work will compile in Debian, much less that there is a .deb package of the version of Perl you need compatible with the version of Debian you have.
Compare this to the expectations of commercial support. If MetroWorks said "Debian" on the box, you would expect that there were .deb packages suitable for all releases of Debian currently in use. You would expect that MetroWorks technical support hotline would be trained in Debian-specific issues. You would expect that there would be no nasty bugs that only pop up because of Debian's particular eccentricities. Which, to MetroWorks, means they would have to perform an additional SQA (Software Quality Assurance) testing round for the Debian version.
When it comes to commercial software, "Support" does not just mean "it can work with a little hacking" or "We managed to compile it for this distribution". It means a large investment of time and money.
- Sam
Re:uhmmm... NO. (Score:1)
If you have to hate IDEs at least hate a good one. (Score:1)
The term IDE was coined by Borland and the best currently available IDE is Delphi. It's hard to explain why something is cool to people who don't believe in it, and Unix people generally scoff at the very notion of an IDE or a visual development environment.
All I can say is, trust me, the reason I like Delphi is not that I am incompetent or unable to handle "real" programming. Designing GUI dialogs by drawing what they should look like just feels like the right way to do things. So far, I haven't seen a Unix-based GUI builder that doesn't suck, but I'm really hoping something will appear soon.
-Graham
Re:So Carmack doesn´t know what he´s doing then?;) (Score:1)
Valve did the same. I don't know about Unreal (gave up after oggling the scenery).
Re:Lessons I've learned... (Score:1)
this does not mean 'technically good' it could mean they get into the market first, gain market share and blast the competition out of the water. Then proceed to strangle/buyout new inovative start-ups and distribute so-so software that makes money for the shareholders.
if you doubt this, look at the car, oil, computer industries. the company who dominates the linux market do not have to be technically the best (unfortunatly).
Re:God save us from IDIOTS!! (Score:2)
Re:articles like this = destructive (Score:1)
With regard to the rest of your message, you really need to check out one of the modern linux desktop environments for your pointy clicky stuff.
Don't take the RedHat bashing too seriously as this is the Linux community and we are all stark raving mad. We do, however, work it out in the end.
Regards
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:1)
That sometimes works, but it's no substitute for across-the-board support for Linux in general.
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
And tell us, Master Linuxian, can you spell out these instabilities? Or what your high-octane needs are?
Or is this just another distro poseur who realized Slack or Debian was out of his league?
My guess?
JADP who screwed up his Red Hat box beyond all comprehension, freaked, and decided to buy something in shrinkwrap, but not before lurking around enough other distro poseurs to figure out which one would let him keep a little cred but still get his hand held.
Re:More like "Designed with Red Hat in mind" (Score:1)
Re:Ditto (Score:1)
In what way would Red Hat be responsible for this? I still don't get it... What exactly are Red Hat doing that's so wrong, except being very popular and having a nifty (imho) package management tool (it certainly took away a lot of my headaches)?
If companies want to supply their products in only one distribution format (.rpm,
Re:Sucky IDE's (Score:1)
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
Regarding
ar x package.deb
tar zxvf data.tar.gz
The files other than data.tar.gz are similar in function to the install.sh that slackware
RPM is harder to get into, as standard unix tools won't get into it, afaik (though perhaps cpio can do it), but there are programs out there that can can get them open, like rpm2cpio and alien.
Besides, you don't have to limit yourself by using package managers.. Lots of people on slackware go outside the packaging system and put stuff in
Re:articles like this = destructive (Score:2)
By the way, (and I'll admit tagging this on here so that my post will get read as well), The president of Metro Werks replied [linuxtoday.com] to the original article with a clarification of their position on RH linux, which is that "Metrowerks validated and QAed the first version of CodeWarrior for Linux GNU Edition against the RedHat distro. Metrowerks is also currently validating against other distros...", mentioning SUSE and Caldera as in process.
So while RH Linux is the only distro which they are supporting so far, the ultimately goal is to support all of the major distributions. So give MW credit and maybe even a pat on the back for taking the time to make sure their product works on each and every platform, one step at a time.
Bet they wish they'd made it clear that that's what they were doing earlier, however. :-)
Double standards? (Score:1)
1. Anyone who bothered to read the answers to the article in Linux Today would know that Red Hat did not sign an exclusive contract with MetroWerks.
2. Corel, as well as MetroWerks have the right to support whatever distro they prefer, even creating their own. I don't see any reason why they should be forced to support each and every distro.
I think the article is heavily biased and it hurts not only Red Hat but the entire Linux community because it will put off any other software vendor that considers porting to Linux.
My Linux is Red Hat precisely because of everything they return to the whole community (well, and because they are the easiest to maintain). And it would be absurd to begin to dislike them only because a software company likes them as well. Please, let's try to be more mature about these things.
Re:Ditto (Score:1)
CodeWarrior is not restricted to Red Hat (Score:1)
Metrowerks supports many operating systems for desktop and embedded computing including Windows, Mac, Palm, PlayStation, Nintendo, QNX, etc. Our OS partners want us to be the best tools company there is, and they do not want us competing against them. So we go to great lengths to make sure all of our partners are comfortable with this. This does not mean we are restricted in any way and in fact, we have many situations where we support competing operating systems. For instance, we support Mac and Windows who compete every day in the market, and we also support all of the games console vendors. Our operating systems partners understand we need to support a lot of target OSes to make our business model work. They accept this as we do not compete with them directly.
As a result, in the Linux world we need to have solid agreements with the companies behind the major distributions in order for it to be clear to customers that we do the tools and the distribution company does the OS support. We started with RedHat because they are the biggest and at no time did RedHat ever ask for an exclusive or exclusionary arrangement. In fact, RedHat's senior management has gone out of their way to make sure we knew they had no problem with us supporting other Linux distributions.
So the long and the short of it is that we have a business plan which is very clear, we need to support a lot of OSes for us to be successful. We have spent over $35 million dollars in R&D over the past five years mastering the technology issues which make this possible. We are big supporters of the open source community and in no way do we believe that our business strategy conflicts with it. We will support other distributions for Linux but it takes time to put all the product QA and agreements in place.
I hope this eases all concerns. If anyone has any further comments, or concerns please feel free to write directly to me at anytime.
I will attempt to contact the author and clarify this misunderstanding.
Ron Liechty, MWRon@metrowerks.com
Ombudsman for Metrowerks Corporation
Open Source / IPO incompatible (Score:1)
I believe that there are some fundamental conflicts of interest between corporations and open source. Yes, corporations can participate and be members of the community, but the danger is that they can become defined as the community, especially when commercial arrangements with other corporations are defining the growth of Linux, and some other open source endeavours (Apache comes to mind).
This depends very much on the manner in which Linux is marketed. If the marketing is primarily word of mouth and acquistion is via internet downloads and ordering basic distros on CD at low cost, then corporations can't dominate that. They can compete with smaller money-making distros and non-profit distros but can't dominate in that medium because the means of advertising and distribution give them no great advantage.
But when marketing is through commercial ads and acquisition is via sales in major retail chains and bulk orders at the corporate level, with support contracts, then it is a different matter.
This is now occurring because demand for both services and applications has accelerated and it appears that Linux will supplant MS at all levels, including the desktop, within just a few years.
The only solution is for the smaller distros and the non-profit ones to pool their resources and advertise and promote Linux in a more democratic way. To promote Linux for what it is - open source. And to affirm that the roots of Linux as something "homegrown" cannot be allowed to dry up by making it into some hybrid which grows in artificial soil. What makes Linux different and really more appealing in the long run to the vast majority of potential users - home users, smaller businesses which can't affort service contracts, schools, etc., is that it is free and responsibe to the neeeds of its users. True, in the past these users have mostly been developers and internet pioneers, but that is changing.
Again, the goals and methods of a corporation like Redhat are fundamentally incompatible with what Linux is and should be. Enough about what RedHat has done for the community. Certainly Redhat has the right to market Linux, but not to define it, unless others surrender that right to RedHat and possibly other large vendors that make deals with billion dollar corporations behind closed doors.
Regardless of GPL, RedHat can define what Linux is with the sheer power of advertising and contracts with distributors, retailers and large users. For example, imagine a contract with the U.S. Government to use RedHat Linux exclusively in all Federal agencies. Far fetched? Not at all. RedHat will supply support and much more - training and custom application development to smooth the transition between a Microsoft based implementation and a Linux based on among millions of users in the Federal government. And so on.
What does the GLP and the fact that Linux is not RedHat mean in that scenario? Nothing whatsoever.
It is a commercial contract between on large entity and another. A large entity like the Federal government cannot make a contract with the
"community". What does that mean?
It might not be a bad idea for Debian, Slackware, GNU, and anyone else with an interest in open source to do a little advertising and to promote Linux in a number of ways. At least there does seem to be some healthy competition in major retail chains among a number of Linux distros. Also, to proceed with the formation of umbrella organizations with the sole purpose of promoting Linux, not a particular distro of Linux or a particular service contractor.
It may well be that for certain kinds of distribution and service contracts with large commercial organizations or agencies a corporation like RedHat may be the only solution. But that is only a small part of what Linux is and can be. Linux should forever be for the little guy, students, home users, small businesses. It can easily become something else if this market is under-represented and doesn't claim its rights.
Marketshare... (Score:1)
Companies that large must make carefull decisions about what they can handle as far as support.
I can't say that I agree with there choice but I don't think RH is to blaim for their choice...
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
It'd help if metroworks had a demo version. (Score:1)
Re:no, SuSE isn't trying to be Red Hat; or vise ve (Score:1)
Ben
RedShit killed my partitions (Score:1)
piss off
Who needs CodeWarrior? (Score:1)
Linux distro comes with compilers, debuggers, and
most every other development tool needed? I have a feeling an DE like CodeWarrior will end up bringing more pain than usefullness to developers who were doing just fine with the 'old-skewl' tools.
Second, don't u think RedHat is doing a disservice
to the Linux community by increasingly separating
itself from the project as a whole? Leading people to believe that RedHat is the maker of Linux only hurts us. Its caused me to hate using RedHat because of the incompatibility issues that come up in development.
Any thoughts on this?
Re:You Got What You Wanted... (Score:1)
5 years ago, many people, including me, were expecting Linux to take off. That was before windows 95 came out rememeber, and Linux actually proved that a Dx4/100 didn't have to suck. Many people were expecting Linux to take off, and it did, at least in acedemia, like wildfire.
You can't have it both ways.
The Hell we can't. Just because Red Hat has marketing clout doesn't mean that it cannot be accepted by corporate culture and still be just as useful as it is now for real work. It can remain a 'hobbyist's toy' and still compete with Windows. It's a fallacy that in order for something to be used by the rest of the world, it's got to somehow suck. This is faulty reasoning, and there is no reason to suggest that this is true.
Re:Money Talks (Score:1)
Slackware hapens to use a STANDARD package manager that's all
Slackware uses tar and gzip , what's so bad about that ? every unix around can use tar , gzip is available on most too
rpm , deb ?
why limit yourself to one distribution by using them ?
granted that Slackware's uninstall and upgrade isn't as easy as appget or whatever debian calls it
Slackware is standard , librarys in sensible historical places , portable package managment
if you can get source in tar.gz format then every UNIX flavor can download it and use it not just some linux people !
sorry I think you're wrong about slackware , and lets not have a my distribution is better than yours war
thanks
Who needs boxes? (Score:1)
Better yet, follow the LSB standards for file locations and let the non-standard distros make symlinks. Isn't that what standards are for?
-----
kernel: lp0: using parport0 (polling).
kernel: lp0 off-line
kernel: lp0 out of paper
Re:Ditto (Score:1)
Considering that Red Hat adheres to the FSSTND, the number of file location issues is probably very minimal, isn't it? If that's true, it's a weak argument/complaint.
Worst of all, you ignored the substance of my post, which is that this is how business works. There aren't going to be 39 customized versions of any commercial product because, quite simply, it's not worth it. It's especially not worth it when there is a clear leader like Red Hat to aim at.
The alternative is to pay exorbitant prices for something that can be customized to satisfy you...but then I suppose people would whine about that too.
I'm not saying Red Hat's perfect at all. I'm especially not fond of the price hike for 6.0. But too many people damn them like satanists when there is plenty of reason to dispute that (witness their firm support of the GPL, releasing their own code under it as well).
Re:I don't see a problem (Score:1)
This is just an example of Linux stupidity (Score:1)
When is the Linux community get it's head out of its arse and agree on a standardization that will guarantee compatability amongst the different distirbutions? Is this the towering ego problem in that noone can agree? From my point of view, we damn well better start agreeing on *SOMETHING* pretty soon beyond the 'Agreeing that nobody agrees syndrom' we are currently caught in.
All this stupidity about my disrtribution is better than your distribution, blah blah blah ad nasuaem is just outright harmful to the whole community. Everyone agreeing on a common way to do things only makes sense. All your config files go here. You minimum version of libraries is this, your revision of gcc is this, and so on. Until the powers that be in the Linux community can agree on a standard, you will continue to see companies only supporting the distro with the most common demoninator which is currently Redhat. Don't bitch at Redhat about it. Instead become involved. Email the companies or individuals who release your favorite distribution and DEMAND they take their collective heads out of their butts and agree upon a standard that will do away with this problem once and for all. Simply crying foul to the vendors of your fav distro and or software package will not accomplish a damn thing.
I don't believe that Redhat is out to sabatoge Linux or to become some big monopoly like Microsoft. This company has lived in the shadow of a Monopoly since its inception, They understand the Linux community being vocal like it is will not condone any type of behavor like this. So in the end, I think the community as a collective whole should voice its concerns to ALL the distributions and absolutely demand these people agree on a common standard. Once this happens, I believe we will see announcements that simply say for LINUX. Besides,a common standard will level the playing field amongst the different distributions. And thats something I think will allow us all to sleep easier at night.
very true but wrong on the usage count (Score:1)
Re:What is the major difference? (Score:1)
Okay, then I have no idea what you're talking about. Code Warrior probably will, as far as I could guess, work with any Linux distro. Some people are whining because Metrowerks is calling their product "Code Warrior for Red Hat Linux." They are whining if in fact the product will work with any distro.
Metrowerks is perfectly within their rights to certify their product for a single distro if they wish. To certify for many is non-trivial if there are significant differences between them. If there are no significant differences then the whiners need to shut up because the product will work fine for them. These people are crying like babies because it appeared Metrowerks wasn't going to release a "Code Warrior for [insert-almost-unheard-of-distro-name-here]".
I never said RedHat didn't follow the standards, nor did i even imply it.
I misread your post. I thought you were suggesting that Red Hat doesn't use the LSB when in fact you were suggesting that Metrowerks follow it. My apologies.
From MetroWerks Pres. & two sides (Score:3)
"Metrowerks validated and QAed the first version of CodeWarrior for Linux
GNU Edition against the RedHat distro. Metrowerks is also currently
validating against other distros such as SuSe and Caldera as additional
supported distros. Nothing in any of our agreements with RedHat preclude us
from validating and distributing against other distros, rather this is a
question of resource allocation to get the validation and distribution tasks
into gear.
We'll remedy this in the near future.
Best regards,
-GregG"
A thoughtful and sensible reply.
I think there is validity to a couple of the arguments here. It IS good that Red Hat and MetroWerks have collaborated to bring a valuable programming IDE to a great platform (Linux). As long as this is a positive FIRST step, and not a collusive agreement that would ultimately cause harm to the Linux Community in general and individual vendors in particular.
I believe it is our responsibility to simply and politely let Vendors and Distributors know that we are a part of a community and that we will support ONLY entities that are also "open" and supportive of the larger Community in which they exist.
If we just do this and strengthen the constuctive dialog among ourselves and our organizations we will win through as a community, rather than being reduced to isolated "customers" which many of us have revolted against.
Peace,
mowa
More like "Designed with Red Hat in mind" (Score:5)
Instead of saying CodeWarrior *only* works with Red Hat Linux, it would be better off saying something like the following:
Requirements:
- Linux distribution with glibc2.1, etc. (recommended for use with Red Hat Linux 6.0)
Something like that. That way, you can check the specs of your own Linux distribution and see if you have the requirements for running CodeWarrior.
articles like this = destructive (Score:5)
I want to talk a little bit about how dangerous and destructive articles like this are.
I AM NOT A LINUX USER, although I have dallied with running Linux on my machine on more than one occasion. I am one of the many x86 Windows users who has at one time or another installed and then uninstalled a Linux distribution. Over the last few years, I've bought two copies of Slackware and two copies of RedHat which translates in the grand Linux headcount to "four users" when in fact I represent zero (I have a single license for Windows 95, thereby contributing 1/4th the number to the Windows headcount that I contribute to Linux's). I don't use Linux for a relatively simple reason: it doesn't work for me. When I think about what I do with my computr I'm systematic.
I read email using Eudora, an excellent email program with a good interface that's easy to use and handles my email volume and have seamlessly integrated PGP. I read netnews using Free Agent from Forte, likewise an excellent program with a good interface. I browse the web with Netscape and Internet Explorer, with Netscape configured with images, Java and Javascript turned off and IE with all of them on so that I can choose "how" to browse just by choosing the tool to browse with. I play games -- lately, "Gruntz" and various arcade game emulators. Lastly, I program, with Cafe or Visual Studio. I primarily program graphics using DirectX and OpenGL.
For these tasks, Linux has little to offer me. Moving to Linux would mean giving up having a good email client, giving up having a good newsreader, giving up all hope of a stable, up-to-date, fast web browser, giving up my favorite games (MAME is available for Linux, but it's generally slower than the DOS and win32 versions), giving up all hope of having a good, rich IDE. Graphics? Give it up entirely. 3d support is practically non-existant on Linux and where it exists it's for last-generation hardware (at best) and poorly supported and even more poorly integrated into the overall system (Mesa on 3dfx is an unacceptable substitute, though perhaps this will change in the long term with some support coming from Matrox for the G200 and Nvidia).
I don't want to have to spend days or weeks getting the system "the way I like it" or even into a usable state (fvwm95 on RH4 was a great example of this: lots of icons pointing to programs that weren't installed, the worst possible GUI interface concept) and I don't want to have to rebuild my kernel just to get sound.
So Linux doesn't work for me and can't be made to work for now. I don't want to use a hacked together tcl/tk based email program where I can manually add a button for PGP and I don't want to have to pretend that EMACS is an acceptable substitute for an IDE with an excellent help system (CW Linux may suffice here, the other Linux alternatives simply don't -- documentation and context-sensitive documentation searches is 50% of making efficient use of an IDE). I like good interfaces and consider ease of use to be the primary reason to use a computer instead of a paper and pen.
Nevertheless, I take great interest in alternative operating systems like Linux and in the Linux community in general and sat the above mainly to illustrate that I'm an outsider by necessity. If the above changes, I'll move. I'd love to run a faster, more stable OS.
The point of this message is to give a warning. When I read articles like the one entitled "Linux is not Red Hat" I detect a strain of paranoia that is very familiar to me as a former Amiga user and this concerns me. It reveals that the Linux community is very fragile and that, if one desired, disrupting the commnity would be very easy. Since there are companies that would be served by such disruptions, and these companies are currently being motivated to improve their own products (some of which I use) largely due to Linux, I have a legitimate point of concern.
The Linux community, from the outside, seems distrustful and self-loathing. When a Linux company succeeds and tries to distinguish themselves (as Red Hat is doing), the Linux community tends to have discussions reminiscent of revultionaries questioning the loyalty of their leaders to a cause. This is very, very dangerous.
Consider how easy it would be to use Slashdot's anonymous coward posting to "dead agent" Linux.
"dead agent" --> fictional messages distributed within the ranks to inspire fear, confusion or terror. typical ideas are things like dropping leaflets on troops that you have good intelligence on telling them that you just bombed their families in town such-and-such into a burning oblivion and include what looks like xeroxes of newspaper reports about the tragedy [from papers familiar to the troops in question] along with a marked-up casualties & fatalities list (also looking copied/xeroxed). In the modern day, Scientologists use "dead agenting" to attack critics by spreading stories about their critics social lives, etc.
I offer the following four fictional messages. Imagine if they were posted by employees or agents of companies that would benefit
THE FOLLOWING ARE TOTALLY FALSE!
First, start the havoc with something like:
>>
There's a much larger issue at stake with CW. A friend of mine who I will not name used to work on the backend for CW MacOS. He said that on numerous occasions he came across code that was obviously cut and pasted from GPL'd code from GNU (especially gcc and no I am not talking about flex/bison generated parser stuff [which they don't use, btw] or other exempt stuff) or stuff that had obviously started that way and been modified. Whenever he brought it up the manager squashed it ("it's public domain") or said that it wasn't their problem (since it was in a different part of the product). He was warned pretty severely not to make an issue of it and told that if he wanted to talk licenses, legal would be happy to explain to him all sorts of things.
I shrugged off this knowledge because CW was strictly Mac&Windows and Open Source is mostly lipservice in that segment. I'm a linux user, I don't care. I know that sounds lazy, but that's how it is. But to have it happening on Linux and nobody willing or able to do anything about it is a horrifying thought. If we don't defend GPL, it becomes meaningless, but who wants to get involved in a suit with a big ISV (who can afford it?). They (and others) are seeking to drive a wedge between free software and open source.
>see bottom>
Add on another message as a reply:
>>
Not surprising AT ALL. I heard something similar to this from a buddy of mine who worked at RedHat before he got sick of the place and decided to move on. He said that GPL abuse was considered a non-issue at RedHat in any context involving improving their relations with commercial ISVs. RedHat was talking about putting together engineer-consultants whose job was going to be to go into commercial ISVs and do nothing but get those ISVs onto Linux and Red Hat Linux specifically (if possible). Management even had a term for it -- "fair game" -- that they'd use as a sort of code when referring to focusing ISVs on RHL instead of general Linux. Helping ISVs by throwing code at them was SOP and since the engineers were Linux geeks a lot of the code that went out was modified GPL'd code with the license removed that presumably ends up in products. I think they were working with Metrowerks, too...
Same buddy said that he'd had enough of working for a commercial company that claimed they were interested in "open source" and "free software." He couldn't take the hypocrites at every turn.
>see bottom>
That would be more than enough to start a firestorm, but smart players know how to win. Add another post along the lines of:
>>
No surprise. GPL is dead if commercial people feel they can ignore it. They'll use whatever resources they can for the least amoutn possible == free! How can we stop this? A boycott would be a start but isn't enough.
>see bottom>
The purpose of the above post would be to silence people who would panic -- they see someone else panicing and instead of downplaying the problem or trying to calm people down, they move to the attack. To solidify this (and add feelings of general hopelessness by brining up a well financed and well staffed enemy), you add a fourth message:
>>
Ho could you prove it, anyway? Suppose that Metrowerks memset (for example, I have no idea) was ripped off. How could you prove it?... someone should crawl through the C runtime source that MS provides with VC++, too...
>see bottom>
And that'd do it. Firestorm.
In this case, the target (Metrowerks) would be burned pretty thoroughly by nothing more than four contrived posts and the use of anti-RedHat paranoia. More than one company has a good reason to burn companies that are considering supporting Linux commercially. They might like to make a few examples as warnings to others.
You can bet that certain companies would call up Metrowerks (if the above posts & resulting firestorm were reality) and say, "Gee, sorry you're having so much trouble there -- isn't it strange that you never have those kind of PR problems on a platform like ours? They're such kooks, god, you have our sympathy working with them. They're probably just using it as an excuse to steal your software, anyway."
Think about who would gain from such practices. Think about the paranoia and conspiracy-minded aspects of the community they'd be using to get there.
Articles like this one (RH != Linux) make these kinds of destructive tactics MORE POSSIBLE.
I think what I'm trying to say here, folks, is that you need to relax a little. If Metrowerks thinks that they can gain by supporting other Linux platforms, they'll support more. If they think that you're just going to bitch and moan or propose totally absurd alternatives (like having volunteers port it "for free!" to other Linux versions), you frustrate and annoy the people who ARE trying to work with you, make others who are considering it rule you out, and fester a virulent strain of paranoia and hostility that could be used (as demonstrated above) to destabilize the community a whole.
In other words, LIGHTEN UP.
RSR
*QUOTED ARTICLES ABOVE AND ALL OF THEIR CONTENTS WERE TOTALLY FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE. TOTALLY FALSE. THEY WERE EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF DESTRUCTIVE PROPAGANDA THAT ***COULD*** BE WRITTEN. (I feel obligated to say this again or people will read the above and not read the context and just freak...)
Re:kinda makes ya wonder... (Score:2)
I disagree. As RMS himself will tell you, the OS is more than just the kernel. It would be quite possible to end up in the situation where apps that rely on certain proprietry libaries (and i'm not talking QT-type psuedo-free, i'm talking real shit propriety MS style stuff).
Case in point: I run internet explorer when I am in windows. why? it is NOT because I like internet explorer, it is because so many windows apps require it's libaries. A similar situation COULD occour in the linux world. Yes, I know that IE has OS integration/monolpoly leverage et al, but nonetheless I still think it fits the point well.
Perhaps even a few years ago this could have been motif, however fortunantly that kind of died due to it's high price. However, if it had been gratis (as opposed to libre), there is a good chance there would be many apps that require it today.
And we're supposed to be surprised (Score:3)
No one ever guaranteed that Linux was proof against commercial applications, Anything Free, and we can port it. Doesn't matter if the original developer only has eyes for one distro, if it's free the work can be done.
But MetroWerks CodeWarriorisn't Free. It's commercial, and if all they give out is an RPM that makes all kinds of assumptions about how your system is set up
On the other hand, CodeWarrior has nothing in the compiler end (everyone knows that). Just that a lot of people like their IDE.
Well, I have a new concept for Linux:
We don't need to be scared of any luser inferface
It's really an idea that's been mentioned before: UI's a fundamentally not a cutting edge thing. They require careful planning and execution, but no massive technology breakthroughs. Hence Gtk+ and Qt, massively superior in flexibility and power to M$'s MFC. In fact the last really good UI I saw on Windoze was DevStudio, which is all custom widgets anyhow.
The point is, we don't need their frikkin' IDE. We can write our own better ones. And our own better spreadsheets, word processors, desktops, and everything else. Miguel and the crew wrote all of GNOME in a year. These things can be developed fast, and with spread out
The only applications that IMHO can deliver real value to Linux are big-iron server-side things that require heavy-duty technology and years of experience (and millions of $$ of screw-ups and mistakes) to get right. Oracle. Lotus Notes.
We can compete in some of these areas, but I'm often less than impressed with Apache or the ftpd's in terms of efficiency and robustness. Take a positive example, CODA, the long awaited high-tech replacement for NFS. It's good. Very good. But it's taken a lot of development, significant resources of CMU, and it's still not quite done. Even our beloved
But even so, these are not the kinds of applications that will Balkanize the distros. They depend on more fundamental, standard services of the OS. They've run on other Unices and the effort to making them cross-Linux is miniscule next to the effort of bringing them in from Solaris or HP-UX or AIX (or worse
In conclusion, CodeWarrior sucks. Go support you favorite GPL'd IDE today!
You Got What You Wanted... (Score:4)
I became involved with Linux when I was in the Navy in San Diego in 1994. At that point, Slackware was the dominant distribution, a very narrow range of hardware was supported and a 486 was as powerful a processor as you might ever need.
At that time, OS/2 was the big threat to Microsoft because it was a "better Windows than Windows." Nobody gave Linux a second, third or fourth thought. And there were no rabid Linux enthusiasts, trying to find ways to promote that operating system as a replacement for Microsoft's.
Five years is a long time in the computer world. It's like dog years, I suppose. In that time, fantastic things have happened with Linux, developments that can certainly be attributed to the advocacy of legions of vocal Linux supporters.
Linux has been something like a stepchild that craves attention. It can do so many things very well, and other things competently. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the operating system. But Windows has been the family favorite and that's tough to swallow.
But lately, something has changed. Linux is becoming more accepted. And that's what we want, right? Well? Isn't that what we want?
Finally, a Linux distribution has gained enough respect and understanding to be the subject of an IPO. The operating system gets more positive media attention than any other. And most of that attention is being paid to the one distribution whose publishers do the most to market: RedHat.
So all of a sudden, RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux. Just because they've achieved significant media attention. Well, so what?
The problem that I see here is one of expectations. You wanted Linux to become a mainstream operating system, but you wanted it to remain open and free. You wanted corporations to embrace Linux over Windows, but you wanted it to remain unencumbered by corporate marketing.
You wanted the same Linux that you've always had to remain the same, even though the short history of the computing industry shows that corporations will not accept software that does not have some sort of traditional means of support and distribution.
You can't have it both ways. Linux will remain a hobbyist's toy and a specialist's tool if it must continue with its established paradigm. But if you want Linux to compete with Windows, then somebody has to adopt the characteristics of Microsoft. The industry reacts poorly to wholesale change, so for Linux to triumph, its advocates must select the best aspects of Microsoft's methods and apply those.
All assuming, of course, that what you really want from Linux is a Microsoft killer.
The problem is that Codewarrior isn't open source (Score:2)
Since RedHat is almost totally open source, and Codewarrior is not, I think the blame for this exclusionary packaging lies squarely on MetroWorks. Their claims of not being able to support 39 distributions insipres absolutely no confidence in me. There is no way in hell I would pay for a product that is so poorly supported that its open source competitors look good in comparison.
Re:cobbled "IDE"s (Score:2)
And can you have it open up a tree based code browser, and browse the call stack of your code without running it?
There are lots of cool things IDE's do that you find very useful in large projects, or in projects that you're thrown into to try and maintain.
perl -e 'print scalar reverse q(\)-:
Personality disorder - Linux is just a kernel. (Score:3)
Distributions are MORE than an OS.
We need to strictly support LSB and
specify and use the components of LSB and linux
that we'd like to call the OPERATING SYSTEM.
or... use FreeBSD.
Red Hat, Debian, and the LSB (Score:2)
MSVCRT.DLL and Linux (Score:3)
Actually, Windows installers like to downgrade this and other system DLLs also as well as upgrade them. They also change the time-date stamps on the files so often you don't know what you have or why. Chalk it up to Microsoft letting the ISVs and their own app division put out the service packs for them. (And OS stability suffering for it.)
Linux has it's own form of library hell, as the Codewarrior support example seems to verify, but I'm sure that someone will figure out what 50 things to manually upgrade to get CW running on their slackware box.
I would imagine that installers that automatically prompt you to upgrade your libs are coming. There's no way to create a modern (ie, not Motif or monolithic) Linux app that can easily run on all distributions without it.
However, the only way to avoid a Windows-like DLL jumble in this scenario is a dependancy database that dead on accurate. This sounds like it means deb and not rpm, so maybe redhat should just get over it and adopt deb.
Anyway it shows that Linux has a way to go in certain places, if only because nobody really knows how to package a commercial application for it. Too many more Netscapes, Star Offices, and WordPerfects are definately bad news if you are interested in commercial adoption.
--
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. (Score:3)
However, just because you toss out the argument they make does not mean you should toss the platform. The point of this person's article is to show a specific instance of business behaviour that is _not_ good for linux as a whole. People should not hate microsoft because of its success, or its wide coverage of the market. That would be akin to saying that anything everyone likes should be considered evil.
Microsoft has earned the contempt of nerds everywhere for their anti-competitive business practices and outright immoral behaviour. Contracts that are not about promoting their solution, but negating the efforts of others, explicitly and with harmful intent.
This article, whether you agree with it or not, is speculating on the possiblity that Redhat has acted in that same way, making an exclusive contract to shut out the other distro's. And if a company, any company, begins to use those kind of tactics, we should object strongly. Even if some small no-name distribution with minimal circulation began to form contracts like that we would be obligated to set forth these objections. You can't hate Redhat bacause they are successful. That's fine. But if they begin the cycle of bad business and anticompetitive bahaviour, then we should object. Strongly.
Now, for the record, I don't think that Redhat can really do too much to the linux I love. It's open and out there, andI will always be able to use the version I want because I can make it into that image. But some vanity, some impulse inside makes me want to share that same ideal distribution with everyone, to give people a real alternative. And I would hate to see the Redhat dist become the version that people use because it has only replaced Microsoft as tyrant, without understanding the loving work that has gone into the philosophical changes that linux is made of.
"Without the law, there is no freedom. Without justice there is no law."
Re:Am I missing something? (I'm missing it too :) (Score:2)
I think you one of the few people that hit the nail on the head here. They are trying to sell a product (an IDE) to people who historically haven't seen much or any need for such a product, no has shown much inclination towards spending money or using non-open source products. There's a really chance that Codewarrior/Linux could bomb big time.
Furthermore, they are trying to sell to a 'community' that has agreed to disagree about any standard beyond by-the-book POSIX. Now that the product's done, your number one problem is providing support for your customers. The problem is that your customers could be running almost anything under the sun in any possible manner.
So it's a no brainer to limit your support initially to the most recent revision of the most popular distribution. They might go bankrupt otherwise. On the other hand, if the product takes off, and their phone jockeys get up to speed, supporting other distributions is the smart thing to do.
--
I don't see a problem (Score:4)
Bringing Windows-style computing to Linux has risks. Most people who use Linux right now probably use it because they like the way it works, not because they don't have access to Windows. But what if people start writing more and more "free" Linux software that relies on some components on the CodeWarrier IDE? What if people stop developing egcs because CodeWarrior Professional is cheap enough and most users are happy enough with it? Commercial software may displace some free software, and in the process, some of the alternative computing paradigms Linux represents might disappear.
Also, the result of bringing Windows-style computing to Linux may well be that Linux gets a lot of Windows-style users. Is that good? On the one hand, it means that a large number of users finally work on a Linux-based platform, a platform with decent APIs (POSIX, CORBA, etc.). On the other hand, it likely means that the ratio of users to open source developers gets even more skewed, and that will push the free community support models to their limits.
The second question of whether it matters that this is tied to a particular distribution doesn't seem that serious to me. In fact, I would find it kind of useful if RedHat became the Linux for ex-Windows-users and, say, Debian became the choice for the traditional Linux community. That would make it much easier to distinguish users when it comes to bug reports. RedHat may become the AOL of Linux distributions, and that's just fine with me.
Its *YOUR* fault. (Score:3)
You.
When you ask for software to be ported, do you ask for Linux?
Or do you ask for the software to be ported to OpenSource OSes?
Do you ask for the port to be done to Linux? Or do the port such that it works with FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, and even SCO. All these OSes are willing to INCLUDE Linux emulation. They seem to believe in a rising tide can lift many boats.
All you have to do is meet the rest of the OpenSource world 1/2 way.
When People ask about Linux point out there is a whole BODY of working OpenSource solutions. And even some commerical solutions(SCO, Solaris and no shocker if Apple makes a Linux PPC/*BSD option). When people ask about Linux, determine if they are asking about Linux or OpenSource OSes. And frankly, most of the vocal
So *RIGHT NOW* you are reaping what you have planted. If you are un-willing to DEMAND of vendors that their products work with *BSD, SCO, Solaris, then you deserve the bitter fruit out of a red hat.
Re:Money Talks (Score:2)
The main reason so many Unix programmers dislike IDE's is that Unix (with X Windows, gcc, gdb and an editor) IS a terrific IDE.