An Open Letter From Bob Young 423
Subject: Freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad.
From: bob@redhat.com
Dear Slashdotter,
The wild and heated debate about Red Hat 7 in recent days has been interesting to follow. It demonstrates the strength of the open source model. By comparison (I'm not sure if anyone noticed this) Computerworld had a front page story a couple of weeks ago about how there were problems with Solaris on Sun's Enterprise systems, but that these bugs were not well known because Sun was making their customers sign NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) before helping them fix the problem.
Consider the contrast between a proprietary vendor's unwillingness to debate the merits of their technology with the open debate that Red Hat Linux enjoys.
This discussion is of such value to the users of Red Hat products that we feel little need to even attempt to comment. Informed readers can read all sides of the debate, download our products, test them, and decide for themselves whether our critics or supporters are correct. Of course the readers who post things like "well I haven't tried RH7 but I've heard..." aren't very helpful, but I trust most Slashdot readers to see through that kind of stuff.
There is one recurring comment that I could not resist addressing. Namely the regular habit of our critics of comparing Red Hat to Microsoft. I just don't get it.
There are many things for which we should be justifiably criticised (I have no idea what these might be, but I'm certain they exist ;-) but trying to act like Microsoft is not one of them. Red Hat's business is built on solving the problem thatMicrosoft's business model has imposed on the software user since Bill Gates disagreed with the members of the Homebrew computing club back in 1980.
The software industry that Microsoft has been the role model for is built on the premise that customers are not to be trusted with the technology that they are building their organizations on. The legacy software industry is built on the proprietary binary-only model where not only does the user not get the source code he needs to make changes, but worse he receives the product under a license that essentially says that if you make any improvements to the technology you are using, if you solve a bug that is causing your systems to crash, or add a feature that your users or customers desperately need the vendor can have you thrown in jail. (If you don't believe me, just read any shrinkwrapped software license). This kind of business model, where the customer is completely beholden to his supplier exists in no other industry in any free market that I know of. It harks back to the old feudal systems of 12th century Europe.
Red Hat's business success is owed to one simple benefit our products and services offer that our larger binary-only OS competitors do not. Namely that our commitment to publish the code that we write and distribute under open source licenses enable us to give our customers control over the technology they are using to build their systems. We cannot promise to deliver perfection. All we can promise is to acknowledge the problems immediately and work with you to fix them publicly and in real time. With control over their systems our users can simply build more stable and reliable systems than the binary-only model allows.
This is why the fear that Red Hat is somehow going to wake up one morning and abandon our commitment to open source is so mis-placed. Open source provides us with -the- competitive advantage that enables us to compete effectively against much larger competitors. To abandon open source is simply not in our customers interest and hence not in Red Hat's financial interest.
So if you want to criticise us for shipping gcc 2.96, you have every right to do so - you'd be wrong, but it is at least a legitimate debate and I'd respect your opinion. But to compare Red Hat to Microsoft indicates an ignorance of what is driving our success.
Remember that this debate was begun by someone going to Red Hat's public site and trying to add up all the registered bugs in Red Hat 7. When was the last time Microsoft (or any other legacy software vendor for that matter) gave you access to their complete bug registration system? Which software model do you really want to see succeed? One where you have to trust your vendor (who can and frequently restrict access to information you does need) or one where you are in control of the technology you are using?
We may be making mistakes - that up to you to decide. Some of them may be important to you and while I have no doubt you will point them out to us, you have control over the technology you are using. We work hard to build products that please most of our users most of the time. But if you don't like something about Red Hat Linux you don't have to use that feature or function. We simply are not pursing a business model that bears any resemblance to Microsoft's, so just quit it.
The next slashdotter who compares anything Red Hat does to Microsoft will be punished. The punishment will be to find the nearest blackboard and write "freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad" seven hundred times.
Cheers, Bob.
Re:A pleasant response (Score:2)
Red Hat, Open Source? (Score:2)
my complaints about redhat (Score:2)
Installing Redhat 6.2 is a very burdensome process because of the number of fixes required. However, the consequences of RedHat 7 are much more severe because of its incompatible version of gcc.
What was such a big deal about coming out with a 6.3 release, which would have been stable and useable, instead of just quickly pushing RedHat 7 out the door?
Re: I get seasick... (Score:2)
Well, given that this is on your desktop, I bet you don't see the names that way under your DesTop Icons. In fact, you won't see them that way in your Windows Explorer, unless, of course, you have that infamous check box checked.
The point made, methinks, was that the names you see were not the actual names of the file. WYSINWYG.
Mr. Young... (Score:2)
I also agree with you that knowing exactly how bad the bugs are is a blessing. It IS good for us to know if there are problems with a product. And the fact that we have full control of the technology is also a Good Thing; it's the biggest reason to use a distribution like Red Hat.
Whether you like it or not, however, you are in the business of providing many of the same things that Microsoft provides. The software you ship must work. RedHat 7 dies after three weeks. If Microsoft were to ship code like that they would be drawn and quartered in the press. It would literally cost them billions, both directly in stock price, and indirectly in reputation damage, were they to ship a product in that state.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Redhat to not only do as well, but to do BETTER than Microsoft does. You have a whole army of people working for you for free that Microsoft does not. Isn't it your job to make sure that the bugs are ironed out? You're starting with some of the most stable code running anywhere, and assembling that code into a system for general consumption. If QA isn't Job 1 for RedHat, what is?
You have frequently compared RedHat to Heinz ketchup. People can make their own ketchup, but Heinz still sells an awful lot of the stuff, because the consumer has come to expect a consistent, quality product. Well, you have just shipped millions of bottles of ketchup that leak. Admittedly, it's good that we know about the problem, but the bottles still leak. What do you think this would do to Heinz' reputation?
Personally, I am firmly in the Eric Raymond corner of the Free Software world -- what I want is software that doesn't suck. I'm willing to pay for it if I need to. I am a professional system administrator. I need to build systems that run and run and never fall over. The control over the technology is important, but it is a secondary goal for me; having access to the source is good, but FIRST it must work. SECOND the source must be open.
The fact that you open source everything is not an excuse to ship bad software. Open Source garbage is still garbage.
Re:An interesting, but incorrect point you make... (Score:2)
A problem is, however, a problem if people notice it. Linux crashing after three weeks *matters*.
hah! (Score:2)
RH7 is, for lack of a better description, a stinky pile of horse doo-doo.
heh
The inclusion of heavily patched, alpha, non-standard components in RH7 was, in my humble opinion, a tragic mistake.
OK, please tell me which parts of RH 7.0 are alpha quality , heavily patched. I'd especially like your insight on which parts are non-standard.
Hard-core linux users have been turning away from RH for years because in an effort to make your products easier to use, you have strayed far from the path that is Linux's purpose... stability and accessability.
Yes, we all know that people are swarming to Slackware because it is bare, raw linux. Sure a distribution with no configuration tools which forces the user to dig in via the console is far more likely to seem accessible to users.
Making your products accessable to Joe every day windows user by making it easier to use is great, but serves little use when it is done at the expense of those that brought your company to where it is today, the hard-core hackers.
How are these changes at the expense of hard-core hackers? I have never come upon a task or function that I couldn't make ANY linux distribution do for me. I think you're just being willful, or you are not one of the hackers you mention --in which case, why champion someone's else's gripes?
You claim that you publish the source that your company creates; where is it? I know it's on RH's site, but finding a patch on your site is next to impossible, even for the advanced user.
Yes, even hard-core hackers have trouble finding patches, especially on a site as complex as Red Hat's.
As I write this, I'm downloading the latest revision of Debian to install on the remainder of my redhat servers. Until RH releases another product that conforms more to the spirit of open source, I cannot use its shoddy distributions.
Why don't you wait until the latest revision of ANY distribution has undergone some tire-kicking by experimenters, and refining by the developers before you go placing it on your production servers. Or why don't you just HACK a distribution together yourself, seeing as hard-core hackers like yourself are what basically gave RedHat what they have today, right? As a disclaimer, I don't use redhat. I did for a while back in the 2.x --> 4.x days. I tried all of the distributions available at the time and settled on Slackware. That is my personal preference. Still, I won't let someone spout uninformed garbage when I see it, regardless of who it's aimed at. Moderate down as needed. ;)
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:2)
However, Groening's first major accomplishment, Life in Hell
"Akbar and Jeff, brothers, or lovers, or possibly both, whatever offends you the most."
Debian user in support of RedHat!...Bob over here! (Score:2)
I wish I could make it to ALS to grab just 5 minutes of your time, but alas I took a teaching job teaching intro to Unix starting this week.
Deus Ex Machina said,
Again, as a Debian user, I feel that there is a hell of a lot WRONG with RedHat's distro - for ME. This more of a personal taste though - and don't anyone dare tell me that Debian hasn't had it's share of crippling bugs....
So I think we should back off and turn down our flamethrowers here - if you want to criticize RedHat, fine, but at least find a good reason.
I too am a Debian and a Redhat user. I like the elegance and commitment to structure that is Debian, but don't be fooled that really doesn't matter to most people. They want it to just go.
Please build or accept somthing like apt-get that doesn't depend on unique ID numbers or "Priority Access." My gut tells me if you don't, one day Linux==Debian instead of Redhat in most peoples minds. What you lose in CD sales you will gain in acceptance of Linux in general.
Please don't lose your dominance. I appreciate your contribution, and I fear the morality of your replacements. Thanks for listening.
Matthew Newhall President of LILUG
Re:He should play up the comparisons to Microsoft (Score:2)
--
Where to find patches, and some other points (Score:2)
I've been using RedHat since 3.0, and have even spent time rolling my own RedHat-based distro. I also write code and release it as open source. So I think I know what I'm talking about, when I say that I have yet to see RedHat do anything that is against the spirit of the "open source movement". Go pick on SuSE or Caldera...
Unlike you, I'd like to applaud RedHat for some of those "pointless changes" that they made - I love it that there is SSL support in things like Samba and that they finally dropped inetd for the vastly superior xinetd. These are genuine steps forward - they may increase the learning curve for upgrading a bit, but they have good reasons for doing these things. I'm not sure I'm happy with the gcc thing, but I'm not going to let it ruin my opinion of this excellent company. So what if some of the new stuff has bugs? They'll get fixed, just like they have in the past.
Unfortunately, no Linux distro has jails... so I'm installing FreeBSD these days. :-)
--
Re:We are not wrong... (Score:2)
The other problem that you mention, exit() being broken, is /not/ a compiler issue. That's an issue with glibc. However, there is an update to glibc available -- 7.0 shipped with 2.1.92-(?), there's a 2.1.94-3 available on your local mirror.
Re: Question for Bob Young (Score:2)
Although I would argue that Red Hat at least didn't beta test the distro long enough, given the fact that the update daemon can flatline the whole OS in a matter of three weeks, I'd say that the number of bugs in the distro as a whole isn't that bad, in the scheme of things. My bugzilla search turns up 790 bugs as of right now. Of these, 203 are marked as duplicates, leaving no more than 587 non-duplicated bug reports. It's quite likely that a number of the new and/or non-closed reports are duplicates as well, I'd hazard that about 550 are non-dupes. 302 are marked as "Not A Bug", although a number of these are dupes as well, or are something like "gcc 2.96 is unacceptable for compiling" (I don't like the idea of a snapshot compiler being included in a release product, but it looks like Red Hat is committed to supporting what they're calling 2.96 on their own, and stabilizing it as much as possible. Furthermore, I hardly think that the deliberate decision on the part of Red Hat to include this snapshot qualifies as a bug, no matter how bad a decision one might think it was). In any case, I'd say we're looking at about 400-450 verifiable bugs.
Now, consider this: Should Red Hat be responsible for fixing bugs in software they did not develop?
In one sense, I don't think they should be responsible for fixing bugs in software they aren't developing. It would certainly be nice if they submitted patches fixing such bugs, but it's simply not economical on their part to do so. Red Hat is in business, and their aim to make money. Red Hat *IS* kind enough, however, to contribute to the development of certain projects like the kernel, as well as GNOME.
Furthermore, a Linux distribution is in theory a compilation of software the ultimately makes the Linux kernel useful -- and I wouldn't task the publishers of compilation discs with fixing bugs in software on that disc. (Of course, Red Hat *SHOULD* be responsible for bugs in their installation software, etc.
OTOH, Red Hat *should* check thoroughly to make sure that the packages they do include in their distro are stable and relatively bug-free (since it's probably well-nigh impossible to produce COMPLETELY bug-free software).
I would compare this to Linus and co. releasing a new major rev. kernel, it takes a long time, and a lot of eyes.
Actually, it's a whole order of magnitude past the release of a kernel, since we're dealing with hundreds of seperate software packages relying of all sorts of different libraries, written by a number of different authors . . .
What can we do to help this? It's not like people are not reporting bugs in the beta, it's more like there's not enough time to address the issues. Or am I all wet here?
Well, they could do like Debian, and test for years before releasing . . . :-) Of course, you're not likely to be the first on the market with the newest and hotest stuff like that, though.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Red Hat user. I do, however, know how to compile my own software. (Yup, I'm one of the three!)
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Re: Like MS (Score:2)
Yup, that's much better than "Hey, we're the standard, we're not gonna give you the code or the specs, just buy our stuff. And hey, if anybody else figures out how to do it without us, we'll just change the standard again . . .", ain't it?
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
KDE 2.0 (Score:2)
As far as waiting for KDE 2.0, why bother? No distribution maker is under any obligation to delay their distro for the benefit of an app vendor. I don't see SuSe, Debian or Corel doing this either. Really the best thing to do - imho - is ship the latest KDE stable, offer the development snapshot as an option and provide the 2.0 stable when available as a download. In fact doing this with gcc might have averted some of the criticism.
Welp, I didn't really mean to imply that they should wait for KDE 2.0 -- more that rather than releasing a 6.3 as a minor update (since 6.2 seems pretty solid in my experiece -- we've got it running on 3 boxen here), release 6.5 as a more major update (with newer release software) while discarding the attempt at making the transition to kernel 2.4 easier (which seems to be the major driving force behind releasing 7.0 w/ "gcc 2.96" and the like).
In any case, I do think you're absolutely right about releasing a stable gcc and offering the next revision as a download . . .
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Re: Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:2)
That product will then only work on either Red Hat 7.0 or another platform that chooses to discard the views of the GCC steering committee.
However, the gcc folk only released their statement after the release of RH 7.0, so it's not like Red Hat decided to include what they call GCC 2.96 in spite of objections by the gcc steering committee. On the other hand, I think that the inclusion of a snapshot of the compiler in a distro is at best not wise.
That being said, I do understand Red Hat's motives for doing so. They're caught in a difficult position -- marketing wisdom drives them to try to be the most cutting edge distro (after all, having the newest features first looks good to PHBs), while on the other hand it seems like a much safer move to ship a currently stable compiler (yes, I understand that there are questions about the state of 2.95.5 or whatever it is . . .).
Personally, I think I would have chosen to keep the stable release of gcc in, wait until KDE 2.0 was out, add in XFree4.0 and the latest stable GNOME, upgrade some other useful packages, and call the whole thing Red Hat 6.5. Then, I'd sit tight and wait until gcc 3.0 and kernel 2.4 were on the immediate horizon, and then start developing what would become RH7.0.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
he makes a good point... (Score:2)
it isn't like MS even gives a fuck about pleasing ANYONE. They kind of just force the software on you and make you like it (b/c there is really no alternative). I want an honest show of hands about who likes that fucking little guy in the corner of Office products that is there to "help" you. When you first started up Win95 did you really like the Start menu or the way that the screen looked? I know I didn't... I hate having the clutter of icons all over my desktop. I don't even like having the taskbar "hidden" at the bottom of the screen.
At least RH is giving us many options to make our systems the way we want them... Until they start mandating a single WM and a single way to setup partitions and programs, I say that they are superior to the MS model.
You can flame me all you like for being pro RH, but for someone who is more interested in having his system work w/o much effort (yes, I know how to setup and use other distributions) RH is good for me. I want to burn through the install w/o having to download this and that to make my system complete. RH is providing a service, they are making Linux easier to use for more people, if you aren't into that, fine... Go off and use Slackware or Debian, or whatever, but don't you dare complain about RH..
Just my worthless
- Bill
Waiting Until Something is "Done"? (Score:2)
Have you ever read The Cathedral and the Bazaar? The whole point of Open Source is to, "Release early. Release often." That's what makes Open Source a colaborative development environment. Linus didn't wait until he had a complete, SMP enabled kernel with full support for every conceivable device. He got something working, pushed it out on the Internet and let other people start hacking at it!
Now, obviously, the situation with an integrated commercial product is different from a single developer putting out pre-alpha code for others to start playing with. Commercial distributions have people depending on them for stability, But to say that Open Source historically waits until something is "done" before releasing it is to be completely ignorant of the Open Source development model. This is a "point zero" release, and as much as I diskile parroting the mantra that x.0 releases are never stable, I think that RH7.0 is another example of that rule. If you don't want to be on the bleeding edge, then wait until the bugs have been ironed out. If you want all the latest new features, then learn to live with the risks.
(BTW, I've been using 2.3/2.4 kernels for months. They don't always work on the first try, but they have the new features I need, and I've gotten used to living with the risk. I haven't had any catastrophic failures yet ((knock on wood)), but I make sure I have good backups...)
--
Re:Just one phrase comes to mind.. (Score:2)
--
gcc (Score:2)
Re:Open Letter To Bob Young (Score:2)
Yes, the gcc was included in the beta. This doesn't change my criticism. Red Hat (and other major distributors) should discuss plans to include snapshot releases with upstream maintainers, not to give them a veto, but so that any problems caused thereby can be worked out in advance.
Re:Like MS (Score:2)
Then fix them. Christ, do you people refuse to step up to the plate because you can't guarantee you'll hit a home run? Redhat isn't telling anyone to go away, but they aren't lying down to give everyone a chance at being great. So they push their product like it's all that matters to them -- because it is.
What do you suggest Redhat do? Advertise Debian?
Re:Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:2)
I have. You can quote me on it. I don't consider it buggy per se, I just found it even more cumbersome to work with than Redhat. Then I found FreeBSD, which I consider to be the best of both worlds. Haven't looked back.
Guess what, I have different needs than you, and others may have different needs than me. Deal.
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:2)
Yes, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft considers it an "innovation" that they changed what letter signifies a standard option in a standard utility.
-
Red Hat vs Micro$oft (Score:2)
Well, it IS true that some people have compared Red Hat to Micro$oft lately. Some because they seem to have a paranoid fear of anything commercial, be it open-source or not. But what has been the most voiced opinion lately, is not that Red Hat's goal, intentions or business methods are Micro$oftish, but rather that Red Hat's .0 releases, and especially the latest, RH-Linux 7.0, has a lot of Redmondish features.
Which, one might wonder?! Well, for one, the .0 releases seem to have been rushed out before going through enough beating. It is indeed impossible to fix every bug, but if the bugs hit the everyday users rather than "just" the geeks, maybe something is wrong with the quality assurance process?
Another thing is the handling of the gcc 2.96beta issue. There is no gcc 2.96, despite what the name of the package in Red Hat Linux 7 might be. There was a developmental branch of gcc named 2.96 which hadn't been blessed as finished yet. This branch is now renamed to 2.97 to avoid misunderstandings. The reason for releasing RH7 with the gcc 2.96 beta branch rather than gcc 2.95.2 is, unless I've misunderstood things completely, because of the flakey C++ support in the latter one. This I can understand, support and agree with. What I don't support, however, is naming this compiler anything else than gcc2.96cvs or gcc2.96beta, something it is.
To quote directly from gcc.gnu.org:
The bottom line is, that the handling of gcc in RH Linux 7 was clumsy. And rather than just saying that "You're wrong", Red Hat should admit that something didn't come out right and at least apologise to the community. Do not give those who believe that there's a secret agenda behind the acquiring of Cygnus get even more reasons to be paranoid. They're far enough from the reality already.
Like it or not, Red Hat has become synonymous with Linux in large parts of the non-initiated computerworld. And therefore it falls on the shoulders of Red Hat to do their utmost to make their product better than any other Linux distribution. Because the verdict of Linux from the "real world" won't be based on the stability and security of Debian Linux or the cutting-edge features of SuSE. It will almost entirely be based on how bugfree, secure, easy to use and easy to install Red Hat is.
Maybe with time, this will change, but until then, Red Hat must never, ever race to a release or include beta-software that isn't clearly labeled so. And indeed, this should be in Red Hat's own interest more than anything else, right?
Re:Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:2)
The compiler not being able to build the kernel is the kernel's fault, not the compiler's.
If I'm not mistaken, gcc 2.95.2 can't even compile the kernel.
[OFF] Re:Why do you attack my gender? (Score:2)
I did attack your claim to womanhood through the nick of Anne Marie.
Still, your points in this forum a quite valid, and I welcome the diversity a man posing as a woman can bring.
Got any pics?
Re:It burns! (Score:2)
He completely misses the issues... (Score:2)
The real things he needs to be doing is explaining to us WHY they included gcc 2.96 rather than a stable, proven version?
WHY are they encouraging the concepts of propriety in the software that they're distributing?
WHY are they regularly taking software that the open-source community and environment have strived so hard for and creating situations where no one can work with them, and incompatabilities and instability arise?
One could argue that while they are definately users and evangelists of the open source movement, they are still a closed-shop. If they were truly open source, and constantly contributing back to the community, wouldn't someone have known BEFORE it was released that they were doing some wacky things in their software? I mean, consider it...yes, we get to see their sourcecode, but we only get REAL access to it when they release it, not during the actual development of it. So while we've all been hacking away at the RH6.2 source, making improvements and sharing these to the rest of the community, we couldn't plan for and anticipate the changes that were being made and improvments (AND BUGS) that would be introduced in the RH7 source because we only get access to it AFTER it's released.
The point is, it's these kinds of closed-office things that create and instigate the comparison to Microsoft. And in the same respect, it is these kinds of responses and letters (The ones that don't really address the issues, but dance around them) that are typical of Microsoft (and any other software/hardware behemoth) to put out, expecting to somehow use marketing-speak to appease us.
I may be going off too far on one side, being a bit extreme, but I'm simply trying to raise an issue here. I love RedHat... I love the concepts and togetherness of the opensource effort... I just don't want to see them screwed up by any one company just because they become the dominant player in the field (like Microsoft).
Dual-CPU/Dual-Headed RedHat 6.9 system = 0 crashes (Score:2)
I don't know what the problem here is. I ran over a month with RedHat 6.9 (the 7.0 beta) with a dual-CPU and dual-headed setup. How many crashes? 0.
Will my production servers get 7.0? Hell no! Will my production workstations get 7.0? Hell yes! It's stability against features. You have a choice with RedHat ... a free [speech] on at that.
Learn the RedHat . release ruling: .0 = bad, .1 = tolerable, .2 = stable
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Red Hat, Linux, etc. (Score:2)
When I found out that RedHat 7.0 was finally coming out, I basically shrugged and made a note not to go to sunsite for a few days. Now, I'll admit that I did look at some of the 7.0-beta packages, but was dismayed when I found out that I needed to upgrade my version of rpm -- and I did not see a way to upgrade it. (Admittedly, I failed to look in the 6.2 updates directory.)
I'm just going to go on what I have read here and heard otherwise... Apparently, gcc 2.9.6 has issues. Yes, most software has issues, but these seemed to be serious issues.
I'm going to wait on upgrading my version of gcc, it seems. Although my computer was initially an installation of Red Hat Linux (version 5.2, in fact, which had a buggy-as-hell implementation of GNOME on my box), I decided about the time 6.2 went into beta to move away from the rpm system software methodology. Now, if I can't compile the software packages I want to install, then I'm sunk.
I have to agree with those that say that Bob Young's letter was long and pointless. No, Red Hat is not Microsoft. Red Hat will never be Microsoft. It is impossible for Red Hat to become Microsoft without breaking the GPL, which most of the software for Linux is distributed under. It's just not going to happen.
And, for those of you out there who don't realize this, you don't need Red Hat to run Linux. Debian, Slackware, and SuSE are all alternatives if you want major distributions. Or, hey, go hit freshmeat.net [freshmeat.net] for the tarballs and build them yourselves!
I just have a few questions: How long was 7.0 in beta? How many people tried to download the packages? And was gcc 2.9.6 one of the beta packages?
If gcc 2.9.6 was amongst the beta packages and there was a long enough review period, then Red Hat had no reason to use a different version of gcc if they did not receive bug reports or complaints. The purpose of a beta is to iron out the bugs before a gold release. But one cannot fix bugs that one does not know exist.
However, if gcc 2.9.6 was not within the beta packages, the test period was insufficient, or Red Hat ignored the bug reports, then complain, piss, and moan all you want for you are justified.
And, remember, everyone makes mistakes. If you want proof of this, look at some of the changelogs for the 2.4.0 test kernels. (Okay, maybe this is unfair, but it proves a point.)
Linux is an open source, free operating system. Most of its software falls under the GPL, which ensures open source software and whose developers choose to release the programs for free. It is impossible for any one distributor to gain a monopoly over it like Microsoft over Windows.
Linux is a movement; its user base supplies its voice. Yell loud enough and you will be heard.
Redhat == Microsoft ... relatively (Score:2)
Maybe Bob doesn't get it because he's not really paying attention to what his company is doing.
Redhat, the company, is going about setting up deals with many businesses, such as Dell [dell.com] and IBM [ibm.com], in ways that cause them to prefer the Redhat distribution over others. What Microsoft has done in the past, and what I compare Redhat with, is the practice of trying to make sure that I have no choice in OS for my computers. In the case of Redhat, it's no choice of distribution.
This is different than encouraging some company to offer Linux, and Redhat, with their hardware. These are cases where the hardware vendor will refuse to support their hardware problems when the software being run isn't Redhat (or Windows).
Bob, if you want to be a better member of the Linux community, then work to encourage hardware vendors to not just support Redhat, but to also support their hardware with not just any distribution running the Linux kernel, but other operating systems, such as xxxxBSD, as well.
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:2)
You know, it's odd you mention that. I've worked on HP boxes, Sun boxes, AIX boxes, etc. And the only place where ping was different as to that -n switch was with windows, which does 4 pings and stops by it's default. I susupect what is happening is that you're seeing new Red Hat users run ping, and are suprised when it just keeps going...
Unless you're talking about a different problem with the number of counts produced with a ping, then I think you'd best ask more than just Red Hat to "fix" their problem. :)
Amen. (Score:2)
Would YOU step up to your boss and say "look, you would have never seen this, and you may fire me because I'm telling you, but I did a half-assed job".
I run Win2K on non-mission critical systems. And I like it. But I understand the Microsoft Way of business. I also run Red Hat Linux 7 servers for more important stuff. I know what works and what doesn't. Appreciate both sides of the coin. If you don't like, it, say so and say why, but let's stop crying
Re:freedom & personal responsibility good... (Score:2)
perl -e 'while(){print "freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad\n"}'
---
Re:Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:2)
Neither will binaries compiled with 2.95.2, so I don't see your point here.
The GCC Steering Committe have declared that gcc 3.0 matters are still subject to change - so both 2.95.2- and 2.96-compiled stuff won't necessarily work with 3.0. So the "gcc 3.0" compability argument is moot.
Re:So... [in defense of Red Hat] (Score:2)
blah blah blah Bob (Score:2)
>noticed this) Computerworld had a front page
>story a couple of weeks ago about how there were
>problems with Solaris on Sun's Enterprise
>systems, yadda yaddda
I'd have more respect for Bob/RH if he hadn't responded to all this.
Here's a very basic premise of life in general (IMHO) - "Comparing your own stupid, boneheaded move to someone elses MORE stupid boneheaded move doesn't make yours any better."
>Remember that this debate was begun by someone >going to Red Hat's public site and trying to add >up all the registered bugs in Red Hat 7. When
>was the last time Microsoft (or any other legacy
>software vendor for that matter) gave you access
>to their complete bug registration system?
Microsoft giving access to their bug database has NOTHING to do with the # of RedHat bugs.... or does it
Microsoft _may_ be evil (not a silly debate that i let myself get pulled into), but don't try to make yourself look BETTER by comparison. I mean, we could bring Stalin into it and make RH look amazing!
j
opensource developer vs. leech vs. shareholder (Score:2)
Slashdot readers are a combination of all of these. I think it's important that we consider Redhat from a number of different angles.
1) Opensource developers: well, we'd (I'm one...) probably quit our day jobs and code for peanuts if we had good management, brilliant co-workers, a fun work environment, and good coffee. - Face it, we love to code and we do it in our spare time. We probably don't care too much about a particular distro, since all of our machines are so highly customized as to become almost a custom distribution. BUT... we do appreciate the fact that Redhat and others pay talented developers to write opensource code that everyone can use.
2) LEECH: - don't care about anything except what they can get for free, complains about anything that doesn't work, makes lots of noise, has more free time than money, doesn't contribute back, thinks Redhat sucks because they're trying to make money.
3) shareholder: - wants to know that RedHat is looking out for it's business interests. Giving back to the community has yet to prove it's business value to investors.
it's a difficult balancing act...
comparisons -- to vs. with (Score:2)
Red Hat / Microsoft (Score:2)
Microsoft is a publicly traded software company which sells operating systems and is currently trading at their 52-week low.
Oh, wait a minute...
(it's funny, laugh)
Never used RH7 :) (Score:2)
plastickiwi here feels that Bob Young was wrong in defending his company in this matter. Apparently plastickiwi didn't understand how the complaints people were making about RH7 were going to far.
People were attacking the company saying that the entire coroporation was at fault for a buggy release, and that Red Hat wouldn't let the situation get better.
I've never used RH7, but I have used pretty much every release from 4 - 6.2. Some were buggy, some were'nt. But I never saw a major Red Hat-caused bug in two versions in a row.
I also have used pretty much every version of Windows. I don't think I should have to tell you that I have seen many bugs pass through to the next version unfixed.
This is the point Bob Young was trying to make, he was not defending RH7, he was defending Red Hat.
Of course by know this is redundant, doh! slow typing.
Devil Ducky
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:2)
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:2)
I don't know actually. Perhaps I should have said "arbitrarily differential pricing". For instance, I don't think it is wrong for insurance agencies to charge for different age ranges and car models. That's plain sense - it's more risk for them. However, something like Amazon charging *arbitrarily* different prices, for no other reason than to gouge, doesn't seem to have much ethical grounds (yeah, ok, they said it was a "test"...hopefully it doesn't become their modus operandi).
Re:This is so crazy I have to respond (Score:2)
I think there are some ideas in common between Libertarians and Greens, but they are for different reasons. Libertarians don't believe in the vast wealth and power of some corporations because they hinder the individual's freedom to become vastly wealthy and powerful himself. I think Greens don't believe in the vast wealth and power of corporations explicitly because vast wealth and power gaps are inherently undemocratic and socially unhealthy in general (to paraphrase the quote: "you can have vast concentrations of wealth and power, or you can have democracy; you can't have both").
And again, on drugs, Libertarians think that the government should stop telling citizens what they can and can't use because it restricts their freedom. The Green perspective is that government should stop the war on drugs, not just because people have some right to get high, but because it is fundamentally a war against *people*, which is helping *nobody* (regardless of the freedom issues). Look...these holy "freedoms" and "rights" we have only exist because someone is there to stop somebody else from infringing on them. Freedom comes from restriction. I think we should have as little restriction as possible to maximize the cost/benefit equation...but I'm not so naive to think that totally abolishing any type of government or regulation or arbitrating entity will land us in some wonderful fantasy land. Without *some* sort of government we are back in the "natural" state that we invented up government to avoid in the first place!
So, yes I think that Libertarians and Greens share some goals, but I think they do for different reasons. I'm not here to run down Libertarianism. I think it is a worthy philosophy. Certainly better than the business-as-usual Democrats and Republicans. I think we have some decent third party choices here. My pick is the Green party. I don't think there is any reason to bicker over the differences of these parties, as they are already both vastly different and superior choices to the status-quo parties.
What is the point !!!!!!! (Score:2)
I really dont get it when people just tend to use MS anywhere and everywhere. When I read the main page of
But now, when I have finished reading the letter, I feel cheated. And for all those who are keen to know, I am using 6.2 and not 7.0
That was enough to put me off..
Thanks but no thanks for 7.0. I am waiting for 7.1 (hopefully I will be able to use it).
Re:He should play up the comparisons to Microsoft (Score:2)
You have a bunch of 2.4-testXX kernels.
MAN! Just go to a mirror site and take a look. It takes 10 minutes.
moderation (OT) (Score:2)
--GnrcMan--
We are not wrong... (Score:2)
I am sorry, but the simple fact that exit(0) breaks in certain programs really upsets me. I do not have this problem with RH6.2...
The GNU team released a statement as to why this is bad juju... defend this one all you want, but I feel the majority of us are fairly unhappy with this move.
RH's defense on using a snapshot compiler for a better transistion to the 2.4 kernel is not a worthy defense. It isn't out yet... and still has some time to go. Why not address kernel 2.4 issues when, well, kernel 2.4 is out?
RedHat is not Microsoft, I do believe they are a very good company, but others and myself still believe this snapshot inclusion of GCC to be a Bad^Idea(tm). It may be an opinion, and of course opinions really can't be surmised as wrong or right.... they just reflect our views.
Re:Blackmail (Score:2)
It's all a judgement call, whats major, whats minor, even what is a bug.
Should they have waited? I don't know, I haven't had a problem with my install.
Including "beta" releases of components in a final release is very questionable, but hey, they weren't keeping it a secret. You don't have to deploy it. Stay with 6.x or shit go over to Debian, Slackware, SUSE,
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:2)
Lately I've seen a lot of pro-Nader posts. I prefer Browne, personally, but Nader makes some good points. But it seems to me that a large number of Slashdotters heard Nader was anti-corporation and jumped on the bandwagon. No, I don't think large corporations should run the country. Yes, I do think that a corporation, no matter what size, deserves to make money if they provide a useful service. I'll spare you the list of companies that
And now we're at a new stage ever since Big Money entered "our" world (meaning OSS). Slashdot is aquired by Andover who files for an IPO, Red Hat goes public, etc., etc. Now all of the sudden it's "Slashdot sucks!" and "Red Hat is too commercial!" Fine. Don't go to Slashdot and use a different distro. It's just a matter of choice and opinion.
Re:Like MS (Score:2)
Duplication of effort is what open source software's about though! Well, not quite but:
- Developers work on what they want to work on. You can't reassign them as though doing OSS development is their job or something.
- Parallel development is a good thing. The way Open Source development coordinates tens of thousands of developers (or however many) is by saying "go do what interests you", and
.. well, no two people write the exact same programme. If it's all open source eventually the best ideas get integrated.
I percieve that "why are you wasting your time working on similar projects" argument as a whining remark that not every developer in the world is focusing their energy directly on making your life better.In fact, I would say that open source development is a good example of mimetic [tuxedo.org] evolution. Multiple programmes sharing the same niche allows more vectors for improvement. The more journaling filesystems that bring ideas to US the better off we are! (given that we're working with a modular kernal that can support multiple filesystems formats easily).
FUD (Score:2)
Interesting article, but I'm a little surprised that he skirted the RH 7.0 stability issues as skillfully as a politician.
Release early?! (Score:2)
Open source is a completely different thing, from the nature of the software to the way it's made and you can't compare the ideal microsoft world to the ideal open source world, because they are in many ways complete opposites.
Red hat is only trying to do what open source stuff is meant to do: release early and often, get the eyeballs to report (and maybe fix) the bugs, and release a followup version with less bugs. It's not the same as when a commercial company that writes proprietary softwear releases something like that, where in some cases you could argue that they are meant to deliver a working product. Red hat 7.0 users are taking part in the actual process of delivering a good followup to 6.2
On the other hand, it can sometimes be worthwhile to use our knowledge of the workings of proprietary methodologies when working on oss: that mention of bob's of microsoft's bug database made me think: if microsoft's bug db is consistent with the way they usually write apps, they probably share a lot of the core stuff they're made up of. I'm sure their bug db, and the internal communication tools they have between programmers, and the content revision system they use must be integrated to some extent. Maybe it's all the one app? I have no idea.
I heard somewhere that cvs is 10 years behind it's commercial equivalent. ALso bugzilla has no strong integration with developer mailing lists or the cvs tree (but please prove I'm wrong here) so when are people like red hat, with large scale stuff going on like distros, going to have a suitable tool to make the debugging process more manageable. I wonder if the tools available now are adequate for things like distros?
Maybe the communication between developers should be integrated with the code itself somehow, so that people can have an easy way to find out about design decisions and how bits of code evolved over time.... But I ramble...
Ale
Re:Blackmail (Score:3)
The company's response is, "Well, look how much worse the other guy is! At least we let you see the source code!"
That isn't what the company did.
What compelling defense of RedHat 7.0 am I missing here?
Defense of the bugs within RH7? None. Young isn't defending the bugs. He's just defending against the charges that RH is similar to Microsoft. And his defense happens to be strong.
Re:Like MS (Score:3)
Um, what if the standards set by the dominant distro happen to be retarded? One of the reasons I don't use RedHat is because of the awkward standards they try to set.
Microsoft makes the dominant operating system. Shouldn't we all just use Windows?
Intel makes the dominant PC processor. Shouldn't we all just use Pentium IIIs?
Nike is the dominant producer of athletic shoes. If we oppose their labor practices, we should just sit down and keep quiet about it, because they're number one, and we should buy their shoes.
McDonald's has more fast-food restaurants than anybody else in the world. What do we need Burger King for?
Coca-Cola is king of the soft drink industry. RC Cola should just give up.
--
comparison based on shipping for profit reasons (Score:3)
We're still with you, Bob. We believe Red Hat will stay open source and give us power to control our own software. But a lot of people felt profit was driving this release, and that's a small step down the road to the dark side.
Re:Like MS (Score:3)
I agree to a certain extent. One thing that pisses me off is watching all of the duplication of effort in the Open Source Community. For example, if all of the groups out there working on accounting projects would combine forces and agree on technologies (Perl, Apache, PostgreSQL, RPM, etc.), we could soon have an Open Source, modular, scalable accounting package comparable to something like Great Plains Dynamics. If you don't agree with me, browse around sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net] sometime and look at all of the groups working on similar projects. Imagine what would happen if you combined some of those projects and focused that productivity into one kickass line of Open Source applications!! Don't re-invent the wheel!!
Now... I'm not saying that RedHat should have full reign of Linux standards. However, those of you who have read the book Net Ready [netreadiness.com] know that there are four pillars to success in the modern E-conomy: Leadership, Governance, Competencies, and Technologies. RedHat is providing leadership for much of the community. We should be using the Open Source model not only to support them with the other three, but also to help them with a good system of checks and balances.
Bob's got some good points, and I think we should stop beating RedHat down and instead stick out a hand to pull him back up. Face it, we're all in this together. We might as well stop pointing fingers and try some "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" instead. Then, and only then, will we truly be on our way to world domination.
Personally, I'll be installing RHL7.0 as soon as I can purchase a copy. Why purchase you may ask? Because RedHat, for all they've done for the community, deserves $29.95 of my money.
--Gunfighter
Re:Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:3)
What they did wrong was failed to consult the gcc steering committee to get approval for a new stable so that other venders can also use it. They also failed to modify the contact numbers and emails for the compiler such that it directs problems to RedHat rather than the Gcc group. Third, they failed to roll back those changes to the C++ ABI so that their version would be able to generate code libraries which could be used across platforms. This is bad because it makes shipping C++ libraries more difficult and error prone. Some venders may only chose to ship RedHat versions and thus users of other dists are left in the cold. Also they placed the burden of handing the library problems on the free software developers such as myself without a lot of notice. I only test my software against known stable compiler versions and thus this release caused me some problems.
With all respect to Bob Young, I think that RedHat did make some mistakes. He certainly doesn't deserve the horrible Microsoft comparisons and other flames. However, on issues like shipping snapshots I don't agree with him. Summarily declaring all people who disagree are wrong with him seems quite arrogant. I think RedHat deserves to hear at least on that issue what mistakes they made and where they miscalculated.
Further, I also disagree with RedHat on the production of Inti rather than supporting the GNOME's current C++ binding, Gtk--. That like shipping a version of Gcc which is not compatible is divisive and intrusive into the workings of the Free Software community. A great many people did not see cloning an existing free product nor moving Havoc away from gtk+ development as good for the community. Obviously, RedHat felt it was in their best interests. I do hope that this situation wakes us up to the fact that what companies do is best for them and not necessarily the best for everyone. After all the point of a company is to make money. We should praise a company that does something in our best interest, and point out why we won't support them when they don't. After all it is in a companies best interest to release as little information about what they will support as possible to maintain competitive advantage. At the same time this is really against our interests as free developers such as myself have little chance to fix the bugs that shipping a snapshot compiler causes. However, flaming them like some people have choosen to do helps no one. Constructive criticism is a better approach.
--Karl
Re:Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:3)
Frankly, I think Redhat is giving linux something of a bad name. They're successful, sure, but their bugs always get turned into 'bugs in linux' by the press and the M$ cronies.
I'm grateful for the money that they bring in so that Alan Cox and folk like him can devote their time to the OS, but they have to do *something* about their buggy releases. I can't remember the last time anyone said 'Slackware? That buggy piece of crap? Forget it, I'm going to Redhat.'
So, to some up, I'll repeat something that my friends like to use (stolen from Something Awful):
'Use Redhat Lunix! Lunix si moar fastar!'
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
Generally, stuff that doesn't compile is one of three things -- the compiler (possible, but unlikely - I think there's only one confirmed this-code-is-valid-but-doesn't-compile bug), glibc (very possible -- make sure you apply the update to at least 2.1.94-3), or the code is broken with respect to the standard, and /will not compile with gcc 3.0 when it's done/. The most likely of the three, especially if c++ is involved, is the latter.
Re: Like MS (Score:3)
On the other hand, there are some areas where competing standards don't really hurt folks too much, given that the standard is well documented.
I do, however, like the idea of Red Hat taking charge. At worst, given the manner in which the "community" works, if the standard they attempt to implement ain't no good, it will more than likely get ignored.
----
"A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
Five years ago... (Score:3)
Now, granted, this isn't exactly the same thing. GCC 2.96 isn't necessarily the best choice to maintain compatibility with anything else out there. (And that's an understatement.) But without a leader, no decisions get made.
Maybe the bigger question is, should RedHat be that leader? RedHat seems to me to be the distribution taking the bigger risks and trying to get the biggest lead to show 'how far Linux has come'. So they include patches to the kernel that aren't in anyone's tree yet - AFAIK, that hasn't been a big problem to date. They use bleeding edge software they deem to be stable - hasn't seemed to backfire yet, current issue excepted.
It just seems to me that people criticising RedHat over this decision haven't taken the time to realize RedHat's overall contribution to the community, in terms of writing software, hiring developers, and taking the lead to bring Linux to the average Joe.
If you can't stand it, there are plenty of other good distributions out there that you can use. Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, Stampede, to name a few. Just because RedHat makes a decision you do or don't agree with doesn't mean they are the final word. Plenty of other people have worked long and hard hours to bring what they wanted to the table; try their solutions out.
Re:Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
ping -n has behaved exactly the same for 15 years on every operating system except Windows.
Tell Microsoft to fix *their* broken ping, and RTFM.
-
Nonsense (Score:3)
If you're writing a word processor, you don't want to lengthen your development cycle by a month to fix a problem that only affects 1 in 100000 users. You don't want to double the price of your product so you can chase down the last few bugs that causes poor formatting of certain files.
In the tradeoff between bug-fixes and cost/time, you choose based on how mission-critical an app is. You'd be crazy to use Red Hat 7 to run an airplane. But if you're running someone's desktop machine, it's just fine.
It's just not possible to iron out all bugs without astronomical cost. To make that the standard would cripple the industry and make us wait twice as long for already-delayed software. In most cases I'm willing to accept buggy software with new features. If you aren't, stick with an older version. But don't demand that the rest of us be prevented from seeing a release until all bugs are released to your satisfaction.
bwahahahahaha (Score:3)
whoa. I have never seen such misplaced trust.
...trusting
History (Score:3)
... except that it happened in 1975. And Bill's letter read:
I don't think that calling an entire community as thieves qualifies as "disagreeing"...
In short, if Bob wants to quote Levy's Hackers, he at least should do it right!
Re: Like MS (Score:3)
If there is a dominant vendor, whatever they do becomes a de facto standard. I'm not too keen on it either, but that's reality.
What I am keen on, though, is for that dominant vendor to say "Here's our product. It will become standard. Here's the source code. Copy and reimplement to your heart's content."
Re:freedom & personal responsibility good... (Score:3)
---
Okay, let's talk about gcc 2.96... (Score:3)
I want to know -- what's the upside of 2.96?
---
question = '\FF';
A rather clueless response... (Score:3)
Including alpha components??? If you think this is the first time that RedHat or any other distribution has included an alpha-quality component, then you haven't been paying attention. Right now, I count 133 packages on my system with version numbers starting with "0."!
They included a compiler that has much better C++ support. If anything, this was done precisely to help developers, and "Joe every day windows user" will never even notice the difference. Goodness, what world are you from? Go to their FTP site. They have these things called "source RPMs". They have instructions for installing them. When you install them, you will see not only the pristine source code for the component, but also the individual patches that they apply to them. Debian is a wonderful distribution, so have fun! I certainly hope that the 2.2.17pre6 kernel that they provide doesn't give you any trouble! [debian.org]Just an anecdote. (Score:3)
I wouldn't ever compare RedHat to microsoft. I don't particularly like RedHat's distribution, bu that's just personal taste.
I Do know that last night while hanging out on IRC there we gobs of perople having problems with things specific to redhat.
Stuff not compiling on rh7, people not knowing about the -n switch for ping (if anyone at redhat reads this PLEASE FIX PING, what it does is unexpected and has sent many people looking for deeper problems in their netoworks), and linuxconf in general munging stuff.
I applaud redhat for making a mostly easy but flexible distribution... but please try not to break things that people depend on to work (ping, gcc, etc.)
Subtly wrong. (Score:3)
This only appears correct; it's not. Red Hat engages in a policy of encouraging proprietary vendors to release their software for Red Hat Linux, yes--but I suspect they also encourage people to consider releasing the source to their software as well, if not going the full open-source route.
The real incorrectness comes from the implication, that Red Hat encourages vendors of proprietary software to only ship for Red Hat Linux. Nothing could be further from the truth. Red Hat encourages vendors to make sure that their software works with Red Hat, which is pretty sane business advice--Red Hat has an extremely large market share.
Vendors will (often) choose only to officially support one distro, because QA testing is a long and costly process. Making sure that their software also works on Debian will cost them a small fortune, and the Debian market is small in comparison to the Red Hat market.
If you want to blame anyone for contributing to the non-support of non-RH distros, blame the software vendors and not Red Hat. Red Hat only encourages vendors to support Red Hat (a policy which is as unobjectionable as it is eminently sensible); they don't encourage vendors to get locked into a Red Hat solution (a policy as objectionable as it is monopolistic).
The former is the Red Hat way of doing things; the latter is the Microsoft way of doing things.
Oh, and by the way--I run Debian, and I still like Red Hat a heck of a lot. There's an awful lot of software on my Debian system which came from Red Hat, and one of the books on my shelf is Linux Application Development, written by some Red Hat guys.
I bought the Deluxe version of Red Hat 7.0, even though I'm a Debian user, just to say "thank you" to Red Hat for the software they've contributed to my Debian system.
Re:Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:3)
Well, except that I think differential pricing is illegal. If it isn't, it is at least unethical.
And no, not everything can be solved by "if you don't like it, don't shop there". Hey, maybe I don't like the practices of Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto. Try and buy food that *hasn't* passed through their hands. You pretty much can't. How can you tell? You can't use that excuse against monopolies. And while there are many corporations out there, many are equally as bad as the others, so there is effectively no "choice" to be made.
It's a crime that corporations are treated as individuals under law, because in many cases they don't have to hold up to their responsibilities and are unnaccountable for their actions. Yes corporations and businesses should be allowed to exist. But it should *also* be understood that a corporate charter is a mandate given on the good graces of the hosting society, which can pull it when the corporation does not behave well.
And for the record, I sympathize with many of the Libertarian ideas, but think that "pure" libertarianism verges on irresponsibility. I believe government can and should play a positive role in providing fundamental services to citizens, if it is architected to resist corruption, and open to a real democracy. I feel the Green party, and Nader's candidacy, is the best of many worlds, by mixing some good libertarian ideas, a passion for social justice, and a good helping of civic responsibility and "daily democracy". That's why I'm voting for Nader.
Re:Okay, let's talk about gcc 2.96... (Score:3)
The upside is that RedHat's gcc snapshot generates better code, thanks to the powerful new optimizations it contains. It also fixes some bugs in 2.95.x and works much, much better on RISC platforms. Hardly surprising given that it contains about a year's worth of development effort over gcc 2.95.x.
It's all very well for the gcc steering committee to take the attitude that gcc 3.0 will be done when it's done, but for those of us who want both a working compiler and one that has (almost) all the latest enhancements, RedHat's QA'd gcc snapshot is an absolute boon.
freedom & personal responsibility good... (Score:3)
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad,
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad,
freedom & personal responsibility good, serfdom & tyrannical control bad
...
Re:gcc (Score:3)
gcc's syntax checks got much stricter; unclean code doesn't compile anymore.
If you think you have found something that is really a compiler bug (as opposed to the compiler complaining about broken code), report it [redhat.com] and the problem will be fixed.
Re:Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:3)
Inti is not yet beta code. Neither is the gtk version it uses. And that's quite clear even from the packagename (gtkbeta).
Red Hat Linux 7 also includes gtk 1.2.8, which is the most stable gtk release yet, and that's the version of gtk that's used unless you want to play with experimental stuff.
Re:Great to see, troubling to think about (Score:3)
bugzilla [redhat.com].
Since nobody can fix problems without being aware of them, please make sure you report those problems rather than just complaining on your favorite message board/mailing list/IRC channel/...
Re:What about Qt itself (Score:3)
We've had a close look at it, and we think it's non-standards compilant code in Qt.
With the patch, Qt works without problems.
Writing this from Konqueror 2.0RC2...
Of course he took it personally... (Score:3)
His point is that, any innovation is going to have its faults, and that they have to be worked through. RedHat publishes publishes its distro's faults to the world - something that MS and Sun do not fully disclose. That data is being used to say compare Redhat to MS and Sun - an inherently flawed concept.
Now, comparing RedHat to MS because they are trying to make money from Linux is also wrong (IMHO). RedHat gives a lot back to the Linux community - and heck, they even employ Linux geeks to do just want they want to, add to Linux and open source software.
People are too willing to throw stones at RedHat - helping them find the bugs, and correct them would be more in the spirit of Open Source, and definitely more productive.
Re:Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:3)
Red Hat stung by Linux Popularity? (Score:3)
There was a time when this would have been a non issue. If you didn't like what the Distro contained, you'd replace it yourself. Maybe compile some source code and stick it in, or install a new binary. It would be no big deal, something everyone did to use Linux.
With the growing popularity of Linux, the user base may no longer have the time or skills or both to do this and some definitely don't have the tolerance for any need to do it. Is this a slam against users? No, just recognizing the fact that it's not just the type or kind people it used to be.
All the rants, open letters, diatribes, posts, etc, against Red Hat certainly starts to look like the reactions against Microsoft. To that degree it starts to look like Red Hat is the next MS. It's not all their fault, it's the demands of all the users. The can certainly fall into Microsoft's error of trying to be all things to all users.
This is still Linux though. Everything is still open, the code hasn't been hidden. We can still change it ourselves if we need or want to.
Why not stop all this stuff and start acting like a community of users again. Someone replace gcc 2.96. Then post the code or changes to
We can act more as a community and realize, on all sides, that this won't be the last time this happens and be better prepared to solve the problem when it arises again.
Dear Bob, (Score:4)
The correct term is "Slashbot".
Please take note of this in your future correspondence.
Regards,
AC
Red Hat != Microsoft but... (Score:4)
However I think that there is something in the worries expressed by many about Red Hat's decision to include a gcc that the gcc people have publicly stated is not up to the standard of an official release due to incompatibilities.
Consider that Red Hat do engage is a policy of encouraging proprietary vendors to release their software "for Red Hat Linux" offering binary products only.
Now consider what happens should one of those binary only products is compiled against Red Hat version 7.0 and the product makes use of C++ in it's development.
That product will then only work on either Red Hat 7.0 or another platform that chooses to discard the views of the GCC steering committee.
Red Hat is the biggest player in the Linux market. They control the biggest share of the biggest market for commercial Linux use and they know it. By including "GCC 2.96" in Red Hat Linux 7.0 they are creating a situation of vendor lock in for the users of any proprietary software that is released "for Red Hat Linux" and compiled on the latest version.
I am sure that this is not a deliberate policy at Red Hat - were it deliberate it would certainly suggest a certain leaning towards the position of companies like Microsoft - however the effects remain the same: vendor lock in.
For Bob to reply to such critisisms with "You're wrong" without offering any explanation suggests arrogance. That is the kind of thing one expects of Microsoft. Red Hat need to offer a better explanation than "you are wrong".
Open Letter To Bob Young (Score:4)
Dear Bob,
I admire your company greatly and have had very productive relationships with Red Hat and Cygnus engineers going back many years. I am a member of the GCC steering commitee. I wish you nothing but success.
However, you do have a problem with openness that you are not acknowledging. There is one sense in which your practices do resemble those of Microsoft: your practice of keeping outsiders in the dark about upcoming plans that will affect them. To be specific: your management ordered its employees, including those who were members of the GCC Steering Committee, not to discuss anything about your plans for Red Hat 7.0 with other members of the committee. Advance discussion could have led to improved quality in 7.0, better relations with the outside developers you depend on, better planning by your customers and a whole lot less anger against you.
Joe Buck
Re:Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:4)
Untrue. It works almost perfectly. There is, so far, one known problem that fails to compile code that is ok (and that's currently being fixed).
It can't compile 2.2.x kernels because of bugs in the kernel code (ask Alan), that's why the two compilers are needed.
Re:Unless you need the optimizer... (Score:4)
FWIW, all of Red Hat Linux 7, including Powertools and the Extra CDs for the European edition have been compiled with 2.96 using -O2 -mcpu=i686 -march=i386 without problems.
KDE 2.0 [kde.org] is completely c++, doesn't cause any problems with 2.96 -O2 -mcpu=i686 -march=i386.
Bob, your buggy distros put off newbies. (Score:4)
Quoted from Bob's article:
But if you don't like something about Red Hat Linux you don't have to use that feature or function.Hi Bob. My name is Lawrence Wade, and I have root on four Red Hat Linux boxes.
I'm still a relative Linux newbie. Though I was on the Internet (Arpanet) in 1988 and am therefore very familiar with UNIX heirarchy and commands, my first Red Hat Linux system was my first attempt at administering a UNIX(-like) box.
So, looking around, everyone told me how wonderful Linux is, and how light and easy on resources it is.
At the time, Red Hat 6.0 was current, and I installed it on a 486DX2-66 that I had kicking around. (Linux doesn't need much hardware, right? One would expect that the geniuses at Red Hat wouldn't expect that knowledgeable computer users are going to give a new OS a spin on their main computer, right? One would *think* then that a 486 would be a reasonable place to try out Linux.)
My first problem came when the installer detected that I had a monochrome VGA monitor, and set my text to the same color as my background. I plugged in a color monitor, and still couldn't read it. A reboot with a color monitor on, then a swap back to the monochrome monitor after booting, and the installer was still legible.
Next thing was, RedHat 6.0's installer asked me if I had PCMCIA card slots. This was a VESA-bus 486. I indicated NO.
The installation continued, and then finished. I restarted the machine:
"LI"
Stuck in the rescue disk, booted off that. Eventually found out about the LILO >1024 cylinder BIOS issue. Oops. Not Red Hat's fault, sure, but new users don't understand enough to distinguish that.
After I finally got the machine to start up, the machine hung at "Bringing up PCMCIA services". Still being a complete neophyte at the time, I had no idea how to go and kill that from the machine's startup. You'll note again that when the installer asked me if I wanted to install support for PCMCIA services, the response was probably sent to /dev/null; the installer apparently did what it wanted to, independent of my input. It took instructions about as well as my cat. With a cat, that's cute. With a computer, it's not.
Frustrated to all hell by this point, having wasted a weekend farting around, I took my RH6 disk and threw it across my home office. It landed behind a desk. Windows 95B went back onto that old, occasionally-used 486.
A few months later, I decided to get DSL internet service, and there was no way that I was going to use Windows for my gateway/firewall. So, I hit the Linux websites and got a list of supported network cards.
I rooted around under the desk, and found my RH6 disk under a dustbunny and an empty coffee cup. This time I knew that the LILO bug really only affected 486-vintage machines. I had a Pentium 133 ready to go. With 2 identical and supported ISA ethernet cards installed.
I'm not an idiot. First off, these network cards were set properly so that they didn't have any conflicts. Even Windows 95 was happy with them. Yet, every time RH6 tried to use the second card (eth1), a kernel panic happened. This continued until, in frustration, I replaced eth1 with a PCI NE-2000 card. Immediately, things worked.
After RH6.2 came out, I put it onto that machine, and then swapped back to my original matched-pair of ethernet cards. The machine worked like a million bucks, and has ever since.
So, Bob, what is this, a rant without a purpose? No.
I run Red Hat because, from the perspective of a newbie, Red Hat makes the most sense. Information is readily available. And 6.2 has been very good to me.
And while I realize that you have shareholders who will lose interest if you don't frequently bring out new releases, I'm afraid that most people, upon going through what I went through with RH6, would decide that Linux wasn't worth the trouble.
All the advocacy in the world isn't worth squat if the impressionable Windows user goes out to the local software store and buy a copy of Red Hat 7 to discover that nothing works as it should.
It undermines the Linux movement as an alternative to the scourge of Windows. And while I'm very sensitive to the fact that you have to keep your shareholders happy, discouraging new users by releasing buggy software in colorful boxes only serves to hurt Linux.
We simply are not pursing a business model that bears any resemblance to Microsoft's, so just quit it.New users don't distinguish between distributions - they don't know the difference between SuSE, Caldera, Debian, Slackware and Red Hat. To them, Linux is Linux. If Red Hat is flaky ("and golly, they're a big name!"), then *all* Linux must be flaky.
So, don't be surprised when someone falls asleep at the switch or buckles to shareholder pressure, releases a shitty version of your operating system, and Linux users all around the world start to compare you to Microsoft.
No one asks for perfection. That's simply impossible. But even Windows 95 Upgrade was more stable, reliable and functional than RH6. If RH7 is anywhere near as bad as I'm led to believe it is from here, let the comparisons begin.
I run RH 6.2. I like RH 6.2. I look forward to when your firm releases 7.2; until then, I won't be upgrading any systems. And I'll keep on burning CD copies of 6.2 for my friends, with the explanation that Red Hat bowed to shareholder pressure and released 7.0 before getting it to work properly. <sigh> Sounds just like any product Microsoft has ever released.
Bob, I don't like being a guinea pig. (Score:4)
I'll give you a personal example of what's griping me. I installed the Inti class library because I was looking for a decent object oriented framework under which to develop Linux/GNOME apps. I can't even compile a basic tutorial program with it, because the gtk library that got installed with RedHat 7.0 is a devel one that's prone to crashing, deprecation problems, etc. The error message advised me to go and get a different version of the GTK in order to compile a basic "Hello World" style program.
I'd understand it if I found a complex bug. Really, I would. But what I found was something anyone could have found by taking a blank machine, installing RH7.0 and then trying to compile a program that RedHat has on its website as a tutorial.
A packaged, paid-for distribution is NOT the place for devel code, for alpha code, use at your own risk code, strange new worlds of compilers that can't even build the kernel, etc. Make that an option if you wish.
The best way to continue in your business is to get out of the CD world entirely - except to publish one on ISO and at nominal cost as a baseline, and then have a subscription-based service whereby when I log on to my RedHat machine I'm advised of new developments and offers to upgrade given packages.
Like MS (Score:4)
Btw, Make A Reply to this, i really want to know other people's opinions.
Re:Like MS (Score:4)
Red Hat is OK in my book (Score:5)
Re:Red Hat, Open Source? (Score:5)
Welcome to leap before looking school. You have successfully leaped to a conclusion without looking at the surrounding facts. To help you better understand your position, here are some facts that you may have missed:
This is software intended to help online merchants interoperate with existing credit card clearing houses.
Red Hat (or more likely, the company they bought CCVS from) probably had to sign a lot of NDAs in order to get access to the specifications for those proprietary protocols.
Thus Red Hat has released the software with a license that complies with the legal requirements, but still allows merchants to build Linux solutions. This is a GOOD thing. For details see this [redhat.com].
Are you moderating this down because you disagree with it,
A pleasant response (Score:5)
It's always nice to see an open letter, and even nice to see that Red Hat are actually watching the flow of conversation on Slashdot.
When something goes wrong, it's so usual for someone to sit around and say 'not my fault', that it's nice for someone to sit down and honestly say 'We may have made a mistake, perhaps.. But we made decisions we believed to be right, and you're quite at liberty to disagree..', and actually take the time to read the arguments against, and weigh them up.
I guess there's no progression without controversy and dissent over the paths to follow, and somebody has to spark controversy.
Maybe I speak just for myself, maybe for many, but thanks Bob, for paying attention to what we have to say, and for letting us know that you are, indeed listening to our many voices.
Cheers,
Malk
Debian user in support of RedHat! (Score:5)
Now, this issue is moot in my mind - Young, in effect, seems to be feeding the trolls more than anything else here. No one who had actually researched this debate would claim RedHat to be acting like Microsoft. Again, as a Debian user, I feel that there is a hell of a lot WRONG with RedHat's distro - for ME. This more of a personal taste though - and don't anyone dare tell me that Debian hasn't had it's share of crippling bugs.
In the end, this is all just incredibly silly for me, and I have finally made my decision about RedHat. RedHat is a company, like SuSE and the Turbolinux guys... they are selling a product. RedHat has supported it's product admirably, and though it isn't in my decision the product that I want to use, that doesn't mean that when something goes wrong we should all point our fingers and scream "REDHAT IS BECOMING MICROSOFT!!!" RedHat, as a company, had done a great deal of work for the Linux community and for the acceptance of Linux in places that in turn have made Linux a better OS (IBM, Dell, etc...). So I think we should back off and turn down our flamethrowers here - if you want to criticize RedHat, fine, but at least find a good reason.
Misguided anti-corporatism (Score:5)
One great thing about Linux distributions is competition. Don't like RedHat? Buy SuSE or Turbo or Corel or Stampede or Debian or one of several others. If you want to jump on corporations, then there are some pharmaceutical companies and food processing companies that really need public vehement public criticism of their practices. But don't bother pointing the same kind of fire at RedHat.
Re:Blackmail (Score:5)
You are missing that any large software development effort, if they are honest and have high standards, must admit that they have zillions of "bugs". Most don't make the product unusable or even bad; instead they are things that could be done better, or that some person doesn't like based on taste, or are just notes worth keeping around to think about. (This isn't even counting the many bogus, incomplete, and duplicate bug reports.) There is in fact good reason that most organizations call it an "issue" database instead of a "bug" database.
The 2000 (or whatever) "bugs" in RedHat's bugzilla is a meaningless number, and by itself is no cause for alarm (by users), shame (by RedHat), or criticism (by sanctimonious know-nothings). Go count the bug's in Debian's database. (Don't bother telling me when you get finished, because you won't.)
I think Bob was trying to say that counting the bugs is a silly response to the availability of RedHat's bug database. A more "enlightened" response is to appreciate the value that the mere existence of a public database gives you.
the Clip sez.. (Score:5)
From: bob@redhat.com
Dear Slashdotter,
"it appears that you're trying to write an Open Letter. Would you like some help in choosing defensive words and phrases?"
--
Re:Open Letter To Bob Young (Score:5)