Red Hat 7.0 Coming On Monday 270
the_quark writes: "According to this ZDNet story, RedHat will be rolling out a subscription update service with 7.0, which will be available by FTP on Monday." They're also announcing the "Red Hat Network" which essentially adds something like Debian's apt-get function that I've been using for a couple years now *grin*. BTW, has anyone played with gnome-apt? Not bad.
Re:apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:2)
M
Re:SSH? (Score:1)
Re:apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:1)
But once you get used to apt, it's almost impossible to go back to RPM (and it's almost impossible to convert those RPMs into .debs), although I have to admit that dselect takes a good amount of getting used to. Then again, RedHat doesn't have a text-based package management UI, so it's hard to compare it to anything else. Gnome-apt is getting really good, though.
Re:Ultimate RedHat upgrade: (Score:2)
Life is a disease, sexually transmitted and fatal.
Re:Negative (Score:1)
Re:wait a sec! (Score:5)
At least the temporary ATAPI drivers for the Win2000 install have DMA enabled; Linux always uses PIO mode during the install (unless you hack the install disk with the IDE driver module for your chipset, maybe).
There are some damned good reasons for this -- some drives with some IDE controllers, mostly older controllers, will destroy data if you enable DMA. There are very good reasons to not enable DMA. I've learned about them through experience, with a hacked-up slackware install long ago, but some of those buggy controllers are still around.
OK, now I'll just anticipate your next response: don't enable it on those controllers. OK, what about buggy drives (I believe that Maxtor has a few around). How about bugs that only occur with one combination of a controller and drive? Or a specific controller, a specific master drive, and a specific slave? All of these conditions do exist.
</rant>
Re:Article says "New Compiler" (Score:1)
Re:LSB (Score:1)
Redhat is not responsible for anything in regards to the LSB except the parts which they contribute. What I mentioned (and you eluded to) was that RH does not have the intrest in making it a success. The LSB will continue to go on with or without RH's full support. The reason for their weak-at-best LSB track record is purely self serving and short sighted. As I mentioned before, there are companies which are larger than all the Linux companies combined which have a very strong intrest in the success of the LSB.
You were probibly not in attendance at a certain Linux HA confrence where several participants heard the Redhat representative say that RH had no intrest in participating in anything which would lower their edge. The arrogance was thick and heavy. It dripped slowly and dangled off his chin like red jelly filling hanging from the doughnut filled mouth of officer friendly at the local crispy cream.
Redhat is very aware that the LSB makes it so that third party software companies will only have to port once to "LSB" and their app will run on _any_ LSB compliant distribution. However, what they want is to have these companies port to Redhat - they want to be the de facto standard
No one company will ever own linux. However, RH is, in many ways, acting like they do and it's very upsetting to many people.
Re:Why not free automated updates? (Score:2)
Re:I can't believe it... (Score:5)
Re:Installer: Easier To use w/ Windows? (Score:1)
I was appalled to find that the RedHat 6.1 installer wasn't able to do a non-destructive repartition, nor did it play well with Windows after I did so by hand.
I took an NT machine, used partition magic to move NT over and installed 6.2 without incident. Trivial. Both boot flawlessly. This was a scsi system too.
KidSock
People don't think, they just speak. (Score:4)
Of course, anyone who took the time to do any research would note that this was the configuration that was RECOMMENDED by the XFree people, because it is more easily extensible and prevents the entire server from hanging when rescaling a font. But this guy had just jumped on the chance to dis Red Hat.
I even remember similar complaints when RH moved to Xwrapper, never mind that it was the STANDARD way to do things. People complain about RH moving KDE out of
I've gotten sick of hearing it. If we want to talk about evil Linux distros and commercialization, let's talk about the Mickey Mouse Logo people (Caldera).
Re:wait a sec! (Score:1)
Re:Article says "New Compiler" (Score:3)
The compiler is gcc 2.96 (which will become gcc 3.0). The kernel will be compiled with an older compiler (kgcc). At least, that's how Pinstripe (the beta) was.
The Bold New Concept (Score:1)
Listen, schmuck! It's marketing (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:1)
I know that a 2.4.0-test(something) was included in the beta, as a "preview" technology. Stuff like iptables & friends were there, and it looked like glibc was compiled against 2.4 kernel-headers. Happy?
followers... (Score:1)
Anways, what is it with RedHat? 4.0, 4.1, 4.2- and here's 5.0! 5.0, 5.1, 5.2- and here's 6.0! 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 -> 7.0? Are they scared of minor revision numbers, or are they only useful for correcting the egregrious flaws that are always present in RH's
Re:I can't believe it... (Score:3)
I will never ever pay any penny for Linux software. PERIOD! Certainly as i know enough about linux to build my own systems/network.
Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not Richard Stallman!
OK. Time for two quick lessons. Number one: Redhat pays many excellent developers money so they can make the cool "free" software you like and still pay rent and for their kids health insurance. Redhat then must get money, so they must have something to sell. Number two: this is for priority access, not for any access. It's a service to make it easier for lusers to update their systems, and gives them access to priority servers that have sufficient bandwidth (which again costs money, see lesson one).
Re:Good lord! Someone slap those people. PLEASE! (Score:1)
I dunno - charging for it when Debian and Mandrake are already doing it for free is pretty damn bold, right? Heh. Never did like Red Hat anyway...I own five Linux boxen - Slack, Debian, Suse and Mandrake - not a Red Hat amongst them.
Re:Article says "New Compiler" (Score:1)
Yes, it's just you. (Score:1)
Bloatware (Score:1)
Re:Red Hat dot o not warranted?!?!? (Score:2)
Re:Actually, I think this is funny (Score:2)
Re:Article says "New Compiler" (Score:2)
Re:ATA/100 Support? (Score:2)
Re:Karma burning... (Score:2)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:Good lord! Someone slap those people. PLEASE! (Score:2)
I think Red Hat will be moving away from "versions" altogether, and simply offer the "Red Hat Linux Operating System" as a subscription. That's where the money is. For $10/mo I'd be more than content with a forever-super-fast evolving OS like GNU/Linux. That's why I use Debian' unstable branch at home - apt-get and *poof* latest of the latest. (for better or worse ...)
Sure, the technical concepts are as old as the internet, and have previously been successifully implemented by both Debian and commercial entities (IBM & MS for example), but the subscription service as a business model is brand new, and it's what Microsoft.net is all about, and it's what MMOG's are all about (massively multiplayer online games), and it's what Red Hat should be looking at. The days of shelf-software profits are drawing to an end, and they need to be providing a proactive-payment services, like Debian's apt-get, but to the corporations and others who seem to be more confident in "commercial software", for some semblance of security.
Re:SSH? (Score:2)
SSH? (Score:4)
Re:Why not free automated updates? (Score:3)
Because they provide me with relatively stable, cheap, extensible operating system that I understand and enjoy using. I think somewhere the movement against a sub-standard, expensive, closed-source OS turned into a movement agains any operating system that you have to pay for.
Redhat provides a good product, and (perhaps now) a useful service, so wny not return the effort with a few dollars. To some people, it's worth that to make use of their service, even if they can find the same thing for free elsewhere with a little work.
Do you pay for running water, or do you collect rainwater in your cistern?
Windows update is not free! (Score:3)
Re:Why not free automated updates? (Score:2)
Re:...But does it have K2.4 and KDE2? (Score:2)
As for KDE2, no it won't have it. KDE2 isn't even out, even though it's due in early October.
I'm really not sure if Mdk7.2 will ship with 2.4 -- it will have an optional pre-test-kernel, but it certainly won't be default. 7.2 beta2 is already out, so the final version shoudln't be that far away. I think they're basically waiting for KDE2 final. Mdk7.2 will also have new features like a graphical boot process.
--
One more point missed... (Score:2)
Let's stop criticizing them for the wrong reasons, and start praising them for continuing to prove that the open source method of software development can work on both fronts.
Re:Yes, it's just you. (Score:2)
That is a good point. If I had any kind of authority figure that I were trying to convince that we should use linux, I'm sure they would ask for some kind of "maintenance plan" or "upgrade policy report" or something.
This would be powerful ammo for that kind of argument. Saying something like "...following the regularly published updates as reccommended and installed by RedHat Network...." would sound a lot better than "I'll watch out for new updates to all the software we run and go find them and install them when they come out."
Re:SSH? (Score:2)
Re:One more point missed... (Score:2)
Still, I'll upgrade. I like RedHat's product and their commitment to support it is solid.
They haven't "proven"anything.... (Score:2)
I will excerpt.
Our business may not succeed because open source software business models are unproven
We have not demonstrated the success of our open source business model, which gives our customers the right to freely copy and distribute our software. No other company has built a successful open source business. Few open source software products have gained widespread commercial acceptance partly due to the lack of viable open source industry participants to offer adequate service and support on a long term basis. In addition, open source vendors are not able to provide industry standard warranties and indemnities for their products, since these products have been developed largely by independent parties over whom open source vendors exercise no control or supervision. If open source software should fail to gain widespread commercial acceptance, we would not be able to sustain our revenue growth and our business could fail.
Our reliance on the support of Linus Torvalds and other prominent Linux developers could impair our ability to release major product upgrades and maintain market share
We may not be able to release major product upgrades of Red Hat Linux on a timely basis because the heart of Red Hat Linux, the Linux kernel, is maintained by third parties. Linus Torvalds, the original developer of the Linux kernel and a small group of independent engineers are primarily responsible for the development and evolution of the Linux kernel. If this group of developers fails to further develop the Linux kernel or if Mr. Torvalds or other prominent Linux developers, such as Alan Cox, David Miller or Stephen Tweedie, were to join one of our competitors or no longer work on the Linux kernel, we will have to either rely on another party to further develop the kernel or develop it ourselves. We cannot predict whether enhancements to the kernel would be available from reliable alternative sources. We could be forced to rely to a greater extent on our own development efforts, which would increase our development expenses and may delay our product release and upgrade schedules. In addition, any failure on the part of the kernel developers to further develop and enhance the kernel could stifle the development of additional Linux-based applications.
We may not be able to effectively assemble and test our software because it consists largely of code developed by independent third parties over whom we exercise no control, which could result in unreliable products and damage to our reputation
The scarcity of software applications for Linux-based operating systems could prevent commercial adoption of our products
Our products may not gain widespread commercial adoption until there are more third-party software applications designed to operate on Linux-based operating systems. These applications include word processors, databases, accounting packages, spreadsheets, e-mail programs, Internet browsers, presentation and graphics software and personal productivity applications. We intend to encourage the development of additional applications that operate on Linux-based operating systems by attracting third-party developers to the Linux platform, by providing open source tools to create these applications and by maintaining our existing developer relationships through marketing and technical support for third-party developers. If we are not successful in achieving these goals, however, our products may not gain widespread commercial acceptance and we may not be able to maintain our product sales growth.
We may not be able to generate revenue from sales of Official Red Hat Linux if users can more quickly download it from the Internet
Now please read their financial statements. [yahoo.com]
I'm not knocking Red Hat, but people need to stop thinking that they are the shining example of Linux business. They aren't, yet.
Re:Security? (Score:2)
Re:Redhat - Debian was quite easy! (Score:2)
I don't why people emphasize this point about Slackware being difficult. It is not significantly more difficult than RedHat, just different.
On anothe note, apt-get is really the shit, but gnome-apt still has some rough edges to be smoothed out.
--
Secuirty Issue? (Score:2)
Most organisations I dealt with were run by the suits who would always wait for the physical media to arrive before applying updates, even if these were critical security and device-driver fixes that should have been applied yesterday. Those run by someone knowledgeable pulled the pathces off an FTP server somewhere, and had the patches inplace that day.
Since the turnaround for receiving physical media was at least a month after the release of a major patch, security and other critical fixes were very late to be applied, judging by some of the support calls I had to field. I can envisage the same sort of thing happening here, with organisations waiting until the CD comes appears before installing any security fixes.
Well, the script kiddies will be pleased!
Wanna tell me how? (Score:3)
Yeah, "rpm -Fvh http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/distributions/redhat/u
So, is there any other way (short of paying $$$ for many access licenses to a non-clogged up2date server) for us to give newbies a "one command security update" for Red Hat or Mandrake?
Re:wait a sec! (Score:4)
The two services are actually completely opposite each other. Microsoft makes you buy the software in the first place, pay for every major upgrade, and gives you SOME bugfixes for free.
Red Hat on the other hand, will distribute the software for free, including major upgrades and bug fixes. If you'd like access to their well tested, bugfixed, signed bugfixes and updates on a high priority, high availability basis, then you can pay for such a service. These same bugfixes and updates will still be available for free on Red Hat's site and all of their mirrors.
Red Hat's way of doing business hasn't gotten any less friendly to their customers, and they aren't forcing anyone into ridiculous licensing schemes like some other companies we've been reading about here on slashdot.
You're not in the twilight zone, and nothing is backwards. Just look at the pretty GNU and repeat to yourself "It's...OK".
Re:RPM 4.0 (Score:3)
Security? (Score:2)
Is it just me? (Score:2)
I mean geeze.
It's just a glorified product service contract thingee.
Mike
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
Redhat like Microsoft?? (Score:2)
Re:followers... (Score:2)
--
Re:Start the Conectiva Distro Suckers! (Score:2)
Já temos teorias conspirátorias o suficiente por parte dos gringos aqui, não é necessário que brazucas também o façam com os produtos da terra. A Conectiva emprega dois dos mais competentes "hackers" brasileiros, o Cláudio e o Alfredo Kojima, e não merece esse tipo de coisa. Além disso, eles pagam o Andrew Clausen (na Austráia!) como mantenedor do GNU parted. Acho que isso fala bem alto, não?
E por outro lado, qual a diferença entre o que eles fazem e o que a Mandrake faz? Ou a SuSE? Pense nisso...
--
Re:Installer: Easier To use w/ Windows? (Score:2)
The thing that really swung me over to linux was when I wanted to do a dual boot install - Win 98 + RedHat 6.1 on my laptop (a recently bought second hand P133, 40Mb RAM, 1.6Gb disk).
It came with a buggered copy of Windows 95 on it.
Having used linux before I knew I had to partition the disk. Win 95 had thrown system files everywhere so FIPS[1] was no use. Hmm, nothing for it but to pretend I'd had a disk crash and do a complete repartition, reformat reinstall.
[1]FIPS is the non destructive disk partitioner which works providing that Windows hasn't done something stupid[2] and rendered the disk impossible to modify.
[2]This could be approximated to hasn't been booted yet.
Step 1: Drop down to fdisk, create my 500Mb FAT partition. Leave space for Linux, swap and shared later on.
Step 2: Install Win 98.
STep 3: Discover that it is impossible to install Win98 without a working CD rom drive or a copy on the hard disk. There is no way to make the PCMCIA network card go without installing Win 98.
Step 4: Install DOS from floppy, attempt to pull Win 98 over a serial connection. Give up due to being very slow.
Step 5 : Give up, insert Linux boot floppy, spend 20 minutes installing RedHat 6.1. Let it correctly autodetect all of my Hardware and set up LILO to dual boot to the dos partition. Create a boot floppy.
Step 6: Use ftp, mirror the Win 98 CD to the hard disk.
Step 7: Boot to dos disk, install Win 98, watch it destroy the boot sector.
Step 8 : Rebuild boot sector with LILO - working computer.
Conclusion, the correct way to install Windows 98 onto a machine with no CDROM drive is to install Linux first.
Microsofts installer is good at detecting hardware.
However, it does not allow me to partition the disk (to install a fresh dual boot system I had to repartition after the first install of Win98), it will not share the boot sector.
What we need are manufacturers to create dual boot systems by default and sell those. That gets over the inital difficulties with Linux (i.e. that it tends to destroy your Windows partitions unless you are careful).
Re:Security? (Score:3)
You do know you can pick and choose what you want installed right? An install I did last week was roughly 350 and something megs. That's before I went through and started stripping stuff out. And 7.0 is supposed to be smaller than 6.2. Having a lot of packages does not make it any more bloated, just more flexible.
The standard installs aren't even that bad. If you just choose a workstation install you don't have those security problems because inetd isn't installed. I've found that I have to manually go through and install inetd so that I can run things that use it. If a newbie chooses to install httpd and inetd then that's their fault if it's exploited. A different story would be if someone chose to do a KDE workstation and ends up with telnetd, ftpd, inted, whateverd running. That is not the case. Should RedHat second guess those who actually want them installed on their system?
I really find the comment that RPMs make people lazy. Why reduplicate the effort in recompiling software that doesn't need recompiling. For some software (Apache, Kernel, some bleeding edge CVS source) it makes sense to compile your self because of the build time options. Why is it of any use for people to spend a couple of hours building X? or the couple of minutes per package it takes to compile it? Having the build tools themselves take up a significant amount of space, and it's often more economical to just install an RPM and be done with it.
That being said, if you don't like RPMS, don't use them. Feel free to compile whatever applications you want. You could even recompile the base operating system. It would't matter. The RPM dependencies wouldn't be met, but you wouldn't care. Just don't insult those of us who value the time it takes to do a ./configure, make, make install and wait for things to build.
I do agree on the mailing list point though
treke
Re:Why not free automated updates? (Score:2)
Re:?? (Score:3)
This network thing they've come up doesn't look like such a bad idea, in theory at least. It could turn out to be a crock, but otherwise my company will probably subscribe, as long as the fee is not outrageous. One of the reasons that a lot of closed-source folk don't embrace the open-source business model is becuase they claim that no revenue can be generated. Redhat has come up with another way to make money off of their open-source product. It's good to see that.
Cheers
Re:I can't believe it... (Score:2)
RedHat is going to charge for priority access to fast, guarunteed servers and to notify you of updates.
I have no problem with this. I pay money, I get a service. If I choose not to pay money, I can go to the hassle of doing it myself.
Similarly, if I want to download Debian over my (free) modem then I can do. I can also choose to buy my friend with a cable modem a beer in exchange for his greater bandwidth.
I pay my money, I take my choice.
apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:2)
Sure, it lets you simply get updates from a recognised source.
But it's not free.
I can apt-get anything I want for my Debian system, without paying someone (other than my ISP) for it.
I could be on the Red Hat Network for a year, paying a monthly subscription fee, for which I don't get a promise of quality, regular updates, or anything other than being able to say "Hey, I run Red Hat Linux, and I'm on the Red Hat Network."
Reminds me of the Microsoft Network. Abso-fscking-lutely useless.
I know which distribution I'll be using.
*sniff* *sniff*
Do I smell potato?
Article says "New Compiler" (Score:3)
About the subscription service, it seems everybody is doing the Helix nowadays. But Helix itself is poised to allow updates of the entire distribution (not only GUI), so won't a paid service like that become moot?
Good lord! Someone slap those people. PLEASE! (Score:5)
Bold new concept? Don't get me wrong - I love Red Hat and buy every
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:2)
Alien [kitenet.net] is a program by Joey Hess [mailto] (the same guy who writes the Debian Weekly News) that converts packages between the rpm, dpkg, stampede slp, and slackware tgz file formats. Note that installed 'alienised' packages are classified by dselect and frontends such as gnome-apt and aptitude under a separate 'alien' section.
MashPotato - Mobile Array of Support Helpers for Potato
wait a sec! (Score:3)
This just can't be. I must be in the Twilight zone! Everything has gone backwards!
Re:SSH? (Score:2)
Re:Wanna tell me how? (Score:2)
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Net::FTP;
$remote_path = "/mirrors/redhat/updates/6.2/i386";
$remote_host = "";
$VERBOSITY = $ENV{VERBOSE} || 0;
open(RPM,"rpm -qa |") or die;
while() {
($name,$version,$pkg) =
$rpm{$name} = "$version-$pkg";
# printf "%-30s %-10s %s\n",$name,$version,$pkg;
}
close(RPM);
$ftp = Net::FTP->new($remote_host) or die "cannot connect to ftp server";
$ftp->login("ftp","dmerrill\@nexen.com") or die "cannot login to ftp server";
$ftp->cwd("$remote_path") or die "cannot chdir to remote package dir";
@update_list = ();
foreach $_ ($ftp->ls) {
print "checking $_
next unless
($name,$version,$pkg,$arch) =
print "$name is not installed.\n" unless (($rpm{$name}) or ($VERBOSITY 1));
next if $rpm{$name} ge "$version-$pkg";
# don't actually install kernel upgrades, but make sure to point out that
# they're available.
if (/kernel/) {
print "Kernel update $_ is available (currently at $rpm{$name})\n";
next;
}
# add it to the list
push(@update_list,"$name-$version-$pkg.$arch.rpm"
}
grep(s/^/ftp:\/\/$remote_host$remote_path\//,@u
unless(@update_list) {
print "No packages need to be updated.\n" if $VERBOSITY > 0;
exit 0;
}
print "The following packages need to be updated:\n\n";
print join("\n",@update_list);
print "\n";
#print join(" ","rpm","-Fvh",@update_list),"\n";
system("rpm","-Fvh",@update_list);
Re:New compiler? (Score:2)
Its "just" a new version of gcc. Or rather: Its a special RedHat version of the not-so-soon to be released GCC 3.0 compiler. GCC 3.0 have been worked on for a while now, but the official release is still some months away.
RedHat is probably using some of their in-house expertice (the Cygnus folks) to rip off the most stable parts of the gcc snapshot and package it for their new distribution.
To my knowledge there is nothing revolutionary about the GCC 3.0 - except for better standard compliance and perhaps better optimizations.
PLEASE check it out before bashing it. (Score:2)
This isn't true at all. Red Hat Linux 7 does NOT enable any of them by default. 6.2 didn't enable them all by default.
Now that we can ship a secure replacement, we would have no reason whatsoever to enable them by default on fresh installations, and we aren't doing it.
wu-ftpd is still there if I'm not mistaken
Yes it is, and it's the right choice. Yes, it has had some security problems. Name an alternative that didn't have them. Remember the early days of ProFTPD (the only viable alternative IMO)? Remember the fact that the most recent root exploit related to an sprintf without a %s actually affected BOTH wu-ftpd and ProFTPD?
Right now, I'd call them about on par, and there's no reason to move users to a totally different configuration file layout if it doesn't get them any major benefits.
Also, last time I checked (admittedly I haven't checked the latest couple of releases), ProFTPD didn't support virtual hosts with different password files for each of them. Same for e-mail notifications to the admin for uploads by anonymous and a couple of other features.
Lastly, there's kwuftpd (included in kdeadmin as of KDE 2.0) which provides an easy way to configure wu-ftpd. I haven't seen a similar tool for ProFTPD.
Sendmail is still the default MTA
Yes. Some people rely on its features.
Some of the alternatives (especially postfix, IMO) are great, but not sufficient for everyone.
shouldn't [OpenSSH] obsolete rshd/rexecd and to a lesser extent telnetd?
No way.
Interoperability is still important, and a lot of other OSes (even other Linux distributions) still can't access ssh servers.
We aren't enabling rshd and friends by default, but it's important to keep them in - many setups still depend on them.
Yay! (Score:2)
But guys, only do this if you like to live on the bleeding edge; the X.0 Redhat releases are generally pretty rough, with lots of new stuff; I know, because I've been through three of them. If you're just trying out Linux for the first time, stick with 6.2 and wait for the reviews.
Generally Redhat Release X.1 is pretty decent, and X.2 is downright stable. If you're deploying a system based on RedHat, go with 6.2 and all the updates, with Bastille and the Openwall security patch, and watch redhat.com for updates. Otherwise, beware.
Also, what's this 'apt-get' for Redhat I keep hearing about? I've been using rpmfind for a while, and it works great. RedHat has their own stuff for this these days, but generally rpmfind.net is faster for me...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:wait a sec! (Score:2)
True - but it's not even that. We will, of course, continue to make updates available on updates.redhat.com and announce them on redhat-announce-list@redhat.com and, if necessary, bugtraq and friends.
We're not stopping to give away stuff - we're just introducing some additional services for pay.
(No details before the official announcement
What ever happened to the free server? (Score:2)
server software or specs so we could run "update agents" or whatever it was called on other servers than redhats? Perhaps we can just subscribe to our friends servers... this would also be useful for people who want to do custom patches for a field of machines.. of course apt-get works for that as well.. but then you have to have debians release cycle
Why not free automated updates? (Score:2)
Windows update is free.
Debian gives you that service for free too.
So why pay redhat for that?
Re:Redhat like Microsoft?? (Score:2)
.
.
(In other words, the mere existence of Mandrake makes it blindingly obvious that Red Hat is not Microsoft.)
--
Re:wait a sec! (Score:2)
It's kinda funny seeing Microsoft and Linux going opposite ways. You can download Win2000 Service Pack 1 for free, but OldHat wants a credit card number before you even start upgrading. It's pure capitalist hypocrisy!
Re:Help. (Score:2)
Now before you "flamebait" this, think about a minute. How many messages have you seen on Windows message boards that say "I can't install the drivers correct?" You see, "the computer crashes when I update the drivers," and "I had to reinstall to update the drivers," but you rarely see problems of this nature. That is such a waste. Linux has these good qualities that stuff usually works. However, people who write Linux applications/systems, really have no clue how to package stuff for the user all friendly-like. Who cares if it's totally stable if you can't even INSTALL it? As long as people keep distributing important things (like Glide, or XFree86, or the NVIDIA drivers) with poor documentation and no installer, Linux will continue to suck for a large portion of the computing population, despite any technical merits it may have.
Storm Package Manager (Score:5)
hey taco! haven't you tried the Storm Package Manager? it's got all the features of apt, in a nice GUI interface. from what i've heard, it does more then gnome-apt, and it'll be included in Woody some time soon.
you can get it right now, along with other nifty additions like the Storm Adminstration System, from the stormix [stormix.com] ftp site.
Or, add the following line to your /etc/apt/sources.list file and do an "apt-get update; apt-get install stormpkg":
deb http://ftp.stormix.com/storm hail main contrib
blatant plug: try out the new Storm Linux distribution (called Hail) that just got released, based on the latest debian potato. I wrote part of the ftp install :)
-Doviende
"The value of a man resides in what he gives,
and not in what he is capable of receiving."
RedHat revision numbers (Score:2)
They use 3 revision numbers (.0, .1, .2) and then work on a distribution that may break binary compatibility due to a major program update. 5.0 was glibc, 6.0 was kernel 2.2 (I think). In this case, GCC is upgraded to 2.96 which means C++ programs may have issues.
--
Ben Kosse
Re:It gets worse (Score:2)
Windows Update suck, and are pathetic, kludgy interfaces
Bullshit, Windows update is a very clean. The only client side install is a small activex control it's a transparent install of of a tiny WMI program that quickly scans your computer for what updates the webpage should bother to tell you about. It couldn't be simpler.
I honestly think that you haven't used windows update, or are just another stupid linux zealot blindly bashing anything with the microsoft name
-Jon
Why release 7.0 now? (Score:2)
Re:Help. (Score:2)
Seriously though, the RPM-packagers logic is seriously flawed. If you've got a slow connection, then more likely than not, you will just download a bunch of stuff overnight. In that case, you don't care about the extra size, and it makes it more complex to download multiple packages (you've got to either FTP or use something like GetRight.) If you've got a fast connection, you really don't give a damn if the download is 10 megs larger. Usually the RPM-bloated packages don't make sense. If I'm downloading GNOME, chances are that I won't already have GTK, glib, fnlib, etc. Those that do, are in the minority. Even then, most will have to download the latest versions of the packages anyway. Slackware has the right idea. KDE2 is in two tar.gzs (the KDE2 tarball, and the Qt tarball.)
Re: That's why smbclient wouldn't connect! (Score:2)
Ah HA! I was trying to login to my LAN with smbclient on my Linux box, and it was asking me for a password. I tried the administrator password (which logically should've worked), and it wouldn't go in! Good thing I installed Win2k on my former Linux box; now I can start a Q3 server again (The DMZ option on my router was set to the box's IP).
My point is this: (Score:2)
With Microsoft you pay for a 'premium update service' whether you want to use one or not.
With RedHat you only pay for it IF you want it.
If you don't you still have access to updates through normal channels.
As proprietary vendor Microsoft's Windows Update is as much a tool for Microsoft to pimp out their latest wares as it is a tool for the user (I for one regret also downloading Media Player 7 when I last went to get a Java VM fix from Windows Update).
Re:OldHat 7.0, what'll it fix? (Score:4)
If you run a nice clean theme, probably. If you run an all-singing, all-dancing, ridiculous theme, probably not.
Will Microsoft stop changing their protocol for no other reason than to break Samba?
Will Creative release Windows drivers that don't crash your system every time you attempt to play a sound?
I don't - I'm happily running Debian and intend to stay running Debian!
Re:Good lord! Someone slap those people. PLEASE! (Score:2)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
The press definition of good == profitable (Score:2)
So a "good" thing is a new secure digital distribution format. A way of selling public databases. A "good" thing is basically a new way of way of making money for some people. A thing that is good in an unselfish way, such as a volunteer project, a free display of art, or a public protest is rarely good. Usually it is "weird".
That way we can all subscribe to the unspoken fiction that one day we shall be the lucky ones, we shall be the ones who will see the way and make money, and may god keep us safe until then...
Re:Good lord! Someone slap those people. PLEASE! (Score:4)
Re:Even windows updates are Free! why isnt this? (Score:3)
Their 'updating service' is not. You are always free to ftp the files yourself and add them manually.
They simply want you to pay for a SERVICE they are offering you. No sweat.
And because it's open source stuff they are distributing for the mostpart, anyone else can go make their OWN automatic updater for redhat as well.
People, they are offering a SERVICE. Believe it or not, lots of roothat users are *NOT* really computer savvy yet, and don't WANT to do it all manually.
Do the tech savvy find this service useful? I doubt they will. Will the common user? For sure.
Re:Bold new concept would be a Red Hat SERVICE PAC (Score:2)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:Is it just me? (Score:3)
Make the software free ... Make money through service and support of that software.
In RedHat's case, you can easily provide yourself with the same service and software manually. The fees, as I read it, are for updates and whatnot delivered to you in a convenient and timely manner.
Re:Why not free automated updates? (Score:2)
You can always upgrade any package you want, just like always, for free. But if you subscribe to their service, instead of having to check for updated packages every day using Redhat's update tool, downloading from a mirror, all the while hoping that their anon ftp server isn't already full, you are now notified as soon as updated packages become availabe, and you have the ability to download from redhat directly, without worry that all the mirrors are full.
You aren't paying to upgrade your packages, you are paying for the service of being alerted to new packages and having a very dependable source to download from.
Cheers
Re:automatic updates. (Score:2)
--
Re:Bold new concept would be a Red Hat SERVICE PAC (Score:2)
Yup, I think my system is at a point now where I wouldn't dare trying to upgrade from the CD automatically, manually maybe.
If you strip your system down to just what you actually use then keeping up to date isn't that difficult. (in fact I may even get round to doing that someday :)
Karma burning... (Score:4)
[Steve Martin voice] Excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm so PISSED!
Go ahead. Mark this as flamebait. Mark me down, bring up the same complaints already voiced in other threads as if they're unique...but answer me this;
Why are people ripping RedHat a new one?
Is this just an attempt at 'bash the leader' again? Sure looks like it, and I'm sick of it.
Is any of this based on facts of a real problem, or just unhappyness over someone charging for something nobody's forcing you to buy?
I'll give folks who mentioned Debian/apt-get/windows_update/... a point. Yes, those are handy. You can do similar things with RPM -- no not _identical_, _similar_. Not really interesting, though.
If you know how to run a Linux system, you probably don't need any special services. I sure don't want to update anything without seeing if there's a reason and what those changes are first. If you want to use the service, and it saves you some anguish/time/effort then it does not seem that prohibitive.
It's like people complaining about the cost of VMware or other handy tools. If you don't want to play, don't pay. Why gripe about it?
You Guys Have Missed the Point (Score:3)
Big businesses like subscription models, for a number of reasons. Pay-as-you-go, and pay-as-much-as-you-use-it allow them to tailor the pricing to their needs. And the subscription-style updates frees them from having to worry so much about the OS changing. Having updates and new releases automatically shipped to you vastly simplifies the whole process. If you read the article, you'd note that the subscription will delivered on CD as well as electronic distribution.
Its true that the updates were available from their site, and with up2date. But this is going beyond simple OS updates. Read the article and you'll see how.
Re:Why release 7.0 now? (Score:4)
RedHat stated a while back that 7.0 would ship with a 2.2 kernel but that everything would be ready to go for the 2.4 kernel when it became availalble. Expect to see the kernel change as just another update package in a couple of months.
Related to this, KDE 2 is supposed to go final within the next month. That's another major applicaiton set that it would have made sense to wait for. I expect to see this updated after release as well.
Odds are, people can come up with a dozen other major packages that are "close" to having a new stable version ready. If RedHat waited for all of them, they would never get a release out.
Re:Why release 7.0 now? (Score:3)
--
Installer: Easier To use w/ Windows? (Score:2)
Of course, it's my fault that I couldn't get things running right, but this seems like a no-brainer for RedHat. They need to get the rights to (or make) a disk optimizing utility and a non-destructive repartitioning utility. So here's my question: does 7.0 incorporate this? For folks like my girlfriend that just want to try Linux, not go whole-hog, the 6.1 setup is ludicrous. As a 5-year Linux user, I should have known how to do this. As a brand-new user, there's no possible way that she would be able to install RedHat. How can we hope to get more widespread use of Linux without comfortable, flexible, reasonable installers?
-Waldo
Re:apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:3)
Don't discount what may be a perfectly good distrobution because they are trying to make a buck.
And don't get me started on the Microsoft Network... hehe
I'll most likely continue using my current Redhat 6.1 and update packages where I see fit. I'd love to try Debian, but I figure it would be such a hassle to migrate, I can live without apt-get.
Just my two cents.
Re:apt-get vs Red Hat Network (Score:4)
Its a 3/4 page ZDNet article, for christ's sake! Have you forgotten that Redhat, just like every other Linux distribution, is based on GPL software? Thats free to upgrade. Why anyone would rely on a distribution to determine what software you get is beyond me. Download what you need, when you need it. Sure, have a list of new packages to review, but don't trust just one source with your computer's (read: network's) well being. One bad package, and everything goes kaputz.
Also, you mention that there is no promise of quality. Of course, Redhat can't guarentee the quality of GPL'd software. No one can! Do you think Debian guarentees all of its packages are bug free? Ha! Of course, since they release a new distro every other year, we should hope there would be less bugs. Just wish harder I guess.
But getting back to Redhat, they probably have an uptime guarentee that says their update server will be up 99.9% of the time or something like that, and that all packages will be updated in a timely fashion. That's better than nothing.
----
Re:SSH? (Score:4)
From the article:
Annoying that they call it Linux and not Red Hat Linux, though....But does it have K2.4 and KDE2? (Score:2)
Re:Subscription (Score:5)
Which is a better response, a) or b)?
Or how about this one?It looks to me like Mr. Suit would be more likely to take your proposal seriously if you answered a) to both of his questions. They are looking for the "reliable" solution, even if they have to pay for it.
I don't even use Redhat, I just think they have a pretty good idea
Cheers
Re:SSH? (Score:3)
It's been repeatedly proven that Sendmail is extremely easy to configure poorly, and even one of the more "fringe" Linux distributions -- Debian, has switched to exim which is a breeze to configure, even if it's isn't all that powerful or feature packed.
Wu-ftpd is, well, wu-ftpd. I think we all know it's not too distant past.
I know RedHat is trying their best to make a "ready-to-use", friendly version of Linux, but I think they need to audit their default installation. Far too much is loaded at installation time, and much of it is of limited merit (does anyone really use rsh/rexec on the internet anymore?). Adding OpenSSH is nice, but shouldn't it obsolete rshd/rexecd and to a lesser extent telnetd?