United Linux is Here 500
pstreck writes "Red Hat watch out! Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE and Turbolinux have made good on their promise and United Linux is here! According to their website 'United Linux is a standards-based Linux operating system targeted at the business user. It is developed, marketed and sold by an experienced partnership of Linux companies.'"
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
Standard Standards (Score:3, Funny)
That's the great thing about standards -- there's so many to choose from!
Re:Standard Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
If a business is going to offer a linux version of an existing product, it needs a stable, recognized, widely-used Linux platform to develop for. Writing the code to be Linux-compliant distributed source based on glibc version x, Gnome version Y, places the onus of getting the code running on either the end user or the distribution. This won't cut it in the business world, where you're expected to deliver a binary that had damned well better run once it's installed or the customer will take their business somewhere else.
More and more often, the "standard" that businesses are developing for is Red Hat. This could have the eventual effect of shutting the other players out of the enterprise platform, which, as any of them will tell you, is where most of the money is.
In order to provide a competing stable platform for enterprises to develop for (and
buy software for), the aformetioned companies all threw their weight behind one joint enterprise-ready Linux platform.
Will it work? I don't know. I wish them luck, though. I have no ill-will toward Red Hat as I consider them one of the "good guys", but I'd hate to see them (or any one other distro) dominate the market.
Re:Standard Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this could change quite easily. We're still in the early stages of the uptake of Linux. It's only got to take one of the big players (HP, IBM, Dell...) to decide to give more support to UnitedLinux than to RedHat for all this to change.
Look at the companies that are supporting United Linux. IBM especially likes to see lots of competition between its suppliers. United Linux is a way for then to have that competition and at the same time have all the linux suppliers producing a technically consistent product.
Re:Standard Standards (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Standard Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
The IT marketplace doesn't change that quickly, or that easily. Things take place over years. And things can change.
Fertile ground for the LSB 2.0 (Score:2)
Red Hat is not the standard (Score:5, Informative)
Emphasis and addition mine.
I think you will find that outside of America the picture is quite different, with SuSE and Mandrake doing well in Europe and TurboLinux doing well in the far east.
Re:Red Hat is not the standard (Score:2)
Businesses can have multiple global locations, use the preferred Linux distrobution in each locale and not have to worry about software incompatabilities.
Plus since there are so many standards, it's more likely that a single shared distribution will comply with all of them then the current fragmented distros.
Re:Standard Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem is supporting or certifying distros. "UnitedLinux" just makes it easier for companies to support more distros.
I'm sure there are European companies with software tested on SuSE but not Turbo, and Asian companies where the reverse is true.
Re:Standard Standards (Score:2, Informative)
Standards ? (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
The Press Release (Score:2, Informative)
LINDON, Utah, PARAISO, Brazil, NUREMBERG, Germany, and BRISBANE, Calif. -May 30, 2002- Linux Industry leaders Caldera International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD), Conectiva S.A., SuSE Linux AG, and Turbolinux, Inc., today announced the organization of UnitedLinux, a new initiative that will streamline Linux development and certification around a global, uniform distribution of Linux designed for business. UnitedLinux addresses enterprise customers' need for a standard, business-focused Linux distribution that is certified to work across hardware and software platforms, accelerating the adoption of Linux in the enterprise. Under terms of the agreement, the four companies will collaborate on the development of one common core Linux operating environment, called UnitedLinux software. The four partners will each bundle value added products and services with the UnitedLinux operating system and the resulting offering will be marketed and sold by each of the four partners under their own brands.
Nearly every vendor supplying a piece of the technology infrastructure used by businesses has expressed support for UnitedLinux, including systems and software vendors AMD, Borland, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu Japan, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, NEC, and SAP. Independent hardware and software vendors spend considerable effort certifying their products and services on individual Linux distributions to ensure product compatibility for their customers. UnitedLinux will significantly diminish the number of distributions that vendors are asked to certify and will provide a true standards-based Linux operating environment.
Customers Benefit Through Unity
According to research firm IDC, a 2001 survey of 800 North American and Western European companies found that 40% of the respondents were either using or testing Linux in their organizations. UnitedLinux will help further speed enterprise adoption of Linux by providing businesses with a greater choice in the number of applications and hardware certified to work on the uniform version of Linux. Customers will also benefit from the global sales, localization, education, support and services that all four UnitedLinux vendors will collectively provide. The collaboration of the four leading Linux companies will result in an enterprise Linux offering, which is truly global by virtue of the companies' ability to provide local language support, training and professional services, in addition to the support of strategic partners. UnitedLinux will provide one unified Linux code base for IBM's complete eServer product line and AMD 32-bit and 64- bit platform and Intel's x86 32-bit and Itanium(tm) processor family platforms. UnitedLinux supports LSB, Li18nux, and GB18030 standards, as well as enabling installations in English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese languages.
In addition UnitedLinux unleashes a massive research and development organization for Linux in the enterprise. Effectively, the four companies involved in this process will shift dollars and resources once allocated to creating and maintaining custom Linux operating environments and divert them to new R&D on Linux enterprise software. UnitedLinux is dedicated to bolstering the enterprise readiness of the platform, but in the same collaborative spirit from which Linux was founded and continues to flourish.
Participation and Availability
While today's announcement outlines the founding members of UnitedLinux, the initiative is open for additional Linux companies to participate. The four partners currently plan to each offer their own server products based on UnitedLinux by the end of 2002. For additional information on UnitedLinux, contact Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE or Turbolinux or go to www.unitedlinux.com.
About UnitedLinux
UnitedLinux is a standards-based, worldwide Linux solution targeted at the business user and developed by Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux. Designed to be an enterprise-class, industry-standard Linux operating system, UnitedLinux provides a single stable, uniform platform for application development, certification, and deployment, and allows Linux vendors, Independent Software Vendors, Independent Hardware Vendors, and Original Equipment Makers to support a single high value Linux offering. For more information, go to UnitedLinux [unitedlinux.com].
I don't get it either... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've posted this before, and was modded down as a troll, but I'm glad someone else has noticed this too. Doesn't the fact that "there are already so many standards" imply that there is actually very little about Linux that is, in fact, standard?
Don't get me wrong, variety is good. I would be interested in seeing some good consumer flavors coming out of this kind of effort. Not only that, but this kind of organized, coordinated effort might even be enough to give Microsoft some fits in the desktop market.
Re:I don't get it either... (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over it.
Fewer differences means LESS complexity and variety, not more.
Re:I don't get it either... (Score:2)
DAMN well said!
This echos my thoughts exactly. This is not "creating" something, this is a large group of talented folks getting together and doing something one way to atain a singular goal... the SAME WAY. This can only be good.
It's like if you read LWN [lwn.net], for instance, and you see RH security announcement, or SuSE patch available, or MDK release of Foo available, etc. Now, with these bigger players (MDK excluded from that, obviously) sharing all their ideas and findings, there is MUCH less confusion (in theory, of course) and certainly MUCH less hunting and pecking the Internet trying to make sure your distro is "safe". It'll now just be "United Linux security update for Foo released".
SO much easier.
This is a wonderful thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Linux is strong and has more support, especially since this will cause whole companies to rally their technology together.
2) This gives everyone more competition. If I remember correctly, SUSE or Mandrake was THE Linux distro to get. Red Hat came along and pushed the bar. Whether or not you like Red Hat or not, they have made a major impact in the Linux world.
Personally, if what they saw is true about making a business distro holds true, I want to see what they produce. Here is the simple truth, I was once a tech. I loved learning all the arcane commands and symbols, but I don't have time for that anymore. I need stuff that helps me work faster, better and *simpler*. That is what Windows *does* have in its favor currently. Most things are just a few dialog boxes away and I'm done. I'm waiting for that in Linux and I hope with a decree that they are going after business that they will realize that business isn't interested in the arcane. They want simple, fast solutions to common tasks.
My two cents,
Re:This is a wonderful thing.. (Score:5, Informative)
I completely agree that competition is good. Standards aren't proven to be good by decree; they must be proven in a trial by fire. They must compete with other ideas and (marketing and politics aside) rise on their own merrits.
However, I think you're a bit off on your distro timeline. I seem to remember RedHat being the first push towards a commercial Linux distro. SUSE came down the line. Mandrake was a test of the Linux fabric - it started pretty much as RedHat with KDE (quickly differentiating itself with its own install apps, diskdrake, and other nifty contributions to the community). But RedHat was there first pushing in to the US market with business components the IT Industry has been used to seeing from a commercial OS vendor.
I am still a techie. I came from a Windows world and found myself quickly adapting to Unix when an opportunity presented itself. And I discovered that, for the most part, I preferred Unix. I found a degree of simplicity and power in "man foo.cfg" and "vi foo.cfg" that didn't exist in "clicky-clicky". But there was some learning curve and a suprising amount of philosophical change between the two. It comes to no suprise to me that Unix and Windows admins seem to talk two different languages and come from different cultures. Because they do.
Having said all that... sometimes a GUI is a nice tool to have. HP/UX and Solaris both had config GUIs that were nice to quickly churn out some common admin task (such as adding a couple users). But they were compatible with the old editing flat text files.
Linux offers that now - although different distros tend to favor different admin GUIs.
The Grandmother clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course a stripped-down internet appliance is easier to make under Linux. Linux can be stripped to its bare core and manipulated in every which way possible. Hell, they have distros that can be installed, and ran, on a single 3.5" floppy. So yes, on that front, you are absolutely 100% in the know.
The problem comes when you need more than a stripped down internet appliance. When you need a desktop, a true environment that allows you to run office apps, play games, launch and easily install applications, and also be a server if need be.
Linux can do all those things, but to do them, you normally have two or three different GUIs and/or interfaces that do the same thing. Where was the sound volume located? Where can I set my screen saver settings? Why is it so hard to choose a new resolution? I'm not talking about the intermediate Linux user here, I'm talking about Grandma Thelma who just bought her machine at Wal-Mart and wants to install Pro Knitting Tournament, the latest in Grandma fun.
Lets keep on this little rant and just assume that there is a Pro Knitting Tournament game for Linux that Grandma Thelma wants to install. After she glances at the directions and does what she is told, an error comes up saying Grandma needs a new version of perl. The troubleshooting section says only to go to CPAN and find it. On her way there, assuming that she somehow magically made her internet connection work, she gets lost, finds a link, downloads something but isn't sure what, where it is, how big it was, or what she's supposed to do now. Now she's totally frustrated, her joints ache, and her teeth hurt. She turns the machine off never to bother again, the darned old thing too frustrating to mess with. Another Linux user lost thanks to the thousands of window managers, package managers, source distrobutions, and bash script installs.
This is the first step in fixing this problem. Maybe it won't happen this year, or even the next, but soon graphics will get prettier, GUIs will be more efficient and easier to find (ie, you won't have three different "System/Settings" menus in your "Start Button" (or whatever you want to call it), and packages will be easily installed with great documentation and links will be created on the users desktop as well as their application menu (ie, Start Button).
But that is the future, and this is the start. The journey of a thousand miles has begun.
Well, it looks like a shot at viability to me (Score:2)
Notice the pattern of these four vendors. They nicely cover four continents, albeit Caldera covers N. America rather weakly, relative to the others in Asia (Turbo), Europe (SuSE), and S. America (Conectiva).
Re:I don't get it either... (Score:2)
goldspider asks:
I've posted this before, and was modded down as a troll, but I'm glad someone else has noticed this too. Doesn't the fact that "there are already so many standards" imply that there is actually very little about Linux that is, in fact, standard?
In this case, they don't appear to be talking about a new standard. They appear to be talking about a new distribution, based around the existing LSB standard.
But yes, IMHO there is very little about Linux that is a true standard. There are many defacto standards (GNU, ext2, etc), but there is nothing to stop someone from making a Linux distribution that breaks all such assumptions.
Re:I don't get it either... (Score:2)
Each company separately could follow LSB and other standards, but that would be duplicating efforts.
Each company targets different geographical markets and brings their own customer's interests into the new consolidated release. They also each have various partnerships and aliances that they bring into the consolidated efforts.
I wouldn't be surprised to see these companies merge at some point in the future.
Kinda interesting (Score:2)
Might be worth a try. I use Mandrake Linux at work now, and I can do pretty much anything with it that Windows users can. The only frustrating thing is the lack of good browser plugins (yes, there is Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] but it tends to be rather slow and I want it native.)
Ciryon
Re:Kinda interesting (Score:2)
Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Greatly reduce dependency hell since all these distributions will be guaranteed to have a predefined set of libraries.
2) Greatly reduce the storage space consumed by hosting RPMs. Instead of needing storage space for four separate complete sets of RPMs, only one set of RPMs need to be hosted. These will be guaranteed to work on all four distributions.
3) Greatly reduce the effort needed to support multiple sets of RPMs. Now there will be four different companies that will be supporting the exact same binary code base. For those entities paying for support contracts, the support pool and support options will be quadrupled.
There are undoubtedly many more benefits to a standards compliant body of distributions.
Next up.. (Score:2, Funny)
United? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hint: Read the Website (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry. I thought this was slashdot...
why this is good (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that this would make the market overall MORE fragmented for the following reason:
The 'market' for linux from a strategic perspective only consists of a few big players: Red Hat and ... Mandrake, SuSE .. ? WAIT!! KEEP READING!! SAVE YOUR FLAMETORCH!! Yes, there are hundreds of distros out there - we all know that. But these are highly niche level products and don't represent a real threat to the big profit-seeking boys. These market fragments, so to speak, don't represent significant competition to Red Hat. Do you think a corporation is going to license 10,000 copies of Tinfoil Hat Linux for thier workstations.
If some companies came together to form another big-boy player of the game where real corporate money is at stake, then the amount of real 'for-money' competition has INCREASED! Those niche players can come together and create a real presence which is worthy of competition. This would not create any 'unification' in the linux market as a whole. It just forms another sizeable fragment.
Otherwise the big boys don't really have as much competition and most of the market fragments are so small that they do not matter.
And this, my friends is a good thing. Just like you said, fragmentation is a sign of a healthy market. The market fragments would be big, visible and jarring against one another.
OK, distro makers: Are you ready to RUMBLE?! Let the best innovations win!
A Big Challenge! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully there is good communication channels between the partners, so they don't step on each other's toes!
UnitedLinux "Free for non-commercial uses" (Score:4, Insightful)
"Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released."
What on earth does this mean? How are they restricting the commercial use? Will one 'commercial' copy be sufficient for multiple installs, or will UnitedLinux bring in a per-seat or per-station licence free for commercial use?
I am not reassured.
Re:UnitedLinux "Free for non-commercial uses" (Score:2)
They might be saying that they may include non-free-as-in-free-speech software as long as it has a free-as-in-free-beer license for non-commercial users. If, for example, they packaged BitKeeper in the distro, then the distro itself would be free for non-commercial use. If you deleted the non-free-as-in-free-speech software presumably you would then be able to use it for any purpose at all without fee.
Re:UnitedLinux "Free for non-commercial uses" (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm, maybe there will be a registration code (can I suggest 5 groups of 5 chars?) and then product activatation... then maybe a tie-in with some kind of virtual ID.. a "passport" if you will.
Redhat watch out? (Score:3, Interesting)
In my opinion, so long as Redhat stays focused and continues catering to big business, I don't see them losing ground to this team.
I may be one of the few on this side, but I won't be trading in my Redhat CDs for United Linux for quite a while. I've been using Redhat for a couple years now, and for the most part, I'm a happy customer. It would take either a HUGE advance on someone elses part, or a big nose dive on Redhat's part to get me to switch.
More about cost savings (Score:2, Interesting)
Bye egghat.
Re:Redhat watch out? (Score:2)
United Linux, at least how it seems to me, is not intended to be competition for Red Hat or Mandrake or any other distro, but instead form a standard distro with the best qualities from each existing distro, to make a single deployable solution that works the same in each case. A product like that could really get a lot of people behind it; no more quirks on compilation between different Linux distros, no more odd hardware problems (i.e. hardware working in one distro and not in another, just like my soundcard that works in SuSE but not in Redhat), and giving enterprise customers a feeling that Linux is not a scattered, unsupported product, but a united computing force that they can trust.
Frankly, I think this is a Good Thing (TM). And if Redhat and Mandrake sign up, it could be a great thing. Just imagine an uber-distro that focuses on the LSB, works great, and has the major Linux vendors behind it. It could be a force to be reckoned with, if it goes well. Here's to hoping!
Re:Redhat watch out? (Score:3, Insightful)
RedHat can barely keep afloat supporting theirs. You think 4 companies can keep afloat supporting the same thing (which I really doubt will even be anything close to the same product offered by each of the companies?) Remember, these companies will have to compete for the same support dollars!
I think we are looking at some consolidation in the Linux market fairly soon.
Re:Redhat watch out? (Score:2)
> I cant understand why they would create a linux standard without inviting Red Hat or even Debian to the table.
If they wanted to do business with Debian they would adopt dpkg, Debian’s policies, start contributing and do their own derivative distribution. Debian does what it thinks right, it won’t switch courses for profit because it is a community.
What about... (Score:2, Funny)
Why not get the /. community to create the 'standard' distribution?
Re:What about... (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
More sense (Score:5, Funny)
To a large number of people who aren't utter Linux fanatics and don't read /. or other Linux sites to actually understand why, Linux appears fragmented and inconsistent because of the sheer number of players. To remove 4 from the pool of 15 odd companies and come back with one united brand would help against Redhat and Microsoft.
Essentially saying "well you can go with Microsoft OR Redhat or United Linux". Rather than "you can go with Microsoft OR Redhat or Calerda or TurboLinux or Suse or ..."
Re:More sense (Score:2)
Re:More sense (Score:2)
They don't have to merge to provide a unified product to the end user. Just bolting "Unified Linux" to the end of their products won't, in the eyes of most, make much difference.
Thats the point I'm making :o)
Standards That I accept (Score:2, Funny)
RMS will always attempt to rename any oS using GNU tools.
Linus will always be the head at Linux
RedHat Linux will always Rock!
Sun and IBM still will not get it!
They better correct this: (Score:4, Interesting)
I just wanted to congratulate them and to write them some wishes. When clicking on 'contact' on the unitedlinux-website, there are four adresses.
The mail to unitedlinux@suse.com seems to have reached the support: I recieved a support-ticket number. Hmmm...
The mail to unitedlinux@caldera.com was replied automatically too, but without subject or sender. It said "I will be out of the office traveling between May 28 - June 9. I will be checking e-mail[...]"
The mail to unitedlinux@turbolinux.com did not reach anybody: "Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender"
Should I laugh or should I cry...?
Re:They better correct this: (Score:3, Insightful)
(emphasis mine.)
Er... I really hope that's some sort of typo by the dweebs in marketing...? Since when did the GPL distinguish 'commercial' from 'non-commerical' usage? (or any other Free software license, come to that!) As we know, Caldera has been pioneering the seemingly impossible task of distributing a restricted version of linux (per seat licensing...)
Is there a Bruce Perens in the house?
Re:They better correct this: (Score:3, Insightful)
1)the GPL only required that the source code be freely available, not that the product be freely available, and
2) the reason most (all?) linux distros are freely downloadable was simply a hedge against someone else compiling the freely available code into an "official" release of that code.
Am I wrong? Does the GPL specify that the product above and beyond the source code must be free? If so, does it further specify that being online is a requirement (as opposed to, say, being able to purchase a cd for shipping cost)?
.
Re:They better correct this: (Score:3, Informative)
Having recently taken the Free Software Quiz [gnu.org], I can tell you that not only is "being online" not a requirement, but it is not even sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the GPL. From the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]:
Re:They better correct this: (Score:3, Funny)
Too little, too late. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless this new distribution offers something significantly better than what Red Hat already does--and it looks to me like it doesn't--then this means nothing. A large part of the business world is still uneasy about migrating to Linux; those who do decide to use it will undoubtedly pick a well-established name like Red Hat over a consortium of distributions with much weaker market presence.
Looks like SuSE 8.0 (Score:2)
Kernel 2.4.18 or higher
glibc 2.2.5
gcc 3.1
XFree86 4.2
KDE 3.0
Acrobat Reader
I'm happy to see some companies actually promoting standards and interoperability. I think that this is very very good for the future of Linux.
Re:Looks like SuSE 8.0 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Looks like SuSE 8.0 (Score:2)
Standards schmandards (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, you can call it standard all you want, doesn't make it any more a true standard.
You need to build mindshare with all of your users, clients, etc., get some partners to help you along and support Your Way(tm).
That part looks good for these United Linux folks.
I still prefer The Debian Way, though, and I doubt they will be able to change that.
However, it will be good to have an alternative to Red Hat in the minds of the Common Folk.
And this is a bad thing, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
United Linux is a fantastic idea. Ostensibly, the "UnitedLinux" tag would mean little more than "this distribution adheres to the LSB", but practically, it means much more.
When you download a package for any permutation of UnitedLinux, it will work. Period. No tricks, no shenanigans.
This means that if I'm using SuSE Linux 9.0 or TurboLinux 10.1, I can install any package labeled "UnitedLinux Compliant" without fear or hassle.
I am free to choose which ever distro fits my fancy, based upon its _features_, not whether or not it will run certain packages OK. This is a huge benefit. It means that the UnitedLinux vendors will have to compete with one another to build a better mousetrap, or risk losing out to another vendor in the coalition.
(Don't like the way SuSE works on the desktop? Swap it out with Conectiva. The packages you need to run will still work.)
This would be like Microsoft releasing the source to windows, and allowing every OEM to rebuild it, suited to their own taste.
Users could still be sure that any random
Same idea. A good idea. Promotes healthy competition.
CmdrTaco (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get it I guess, it just seems like there are already so many standards.
What are you talking about?!
This will be the base and it will be LSB and Li18nux Compliant. Where do you get the "more standards" from? This will actually remove 3 and possibly more "standards"!
Instead of having to support Suse, TurboLinux, Caldera, Connectiva and possibly others, you'll now only have to support UnitedLinux. Basically, they have decided to work together in a number of areas to lower the development and distribution costs for both themselves and for others. When the next version of KDE arrives, they only need to make one set of binaries for people to download - not four or more!
I think this is great!
Re:CmdrTaco (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to guess that he's depressed or something, and this is his form of lashing out. It's getting annoying though. I'd rather read the article before his stupid thoughts on the matter.
This *might* be a good, but unlikely (Score:2, Informative)
I will be more interested in this discussion when the 1.1 version of this new combined distro is released. I've not actually used any of these distros for any period of time. I purchased Caldera back in 1999, but found it to be weak, so I went back to RedHat.
It will be difficult for these guys to break into the business market unless what they have is really overwhelming--and their support has to really ROCK! I admin over 100 servers using Redhat 7.[12] now, and its very smooth. I don't look forward to having to rewrite my admin scripts for a new distro, get used to a new way of doing things, etc.
DFossmeister
---
Think your webhost is fast?! Check out mine.
Not interested (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm really glad they're pushing for LSB compliance, but RH has promised they will be releasing a LSB 1.1 compliant distro this year. Since 7.3 isn't it, that means it'll have to be what will undoubtably be called RH 8.0 and will probably be released this Fall/early Winter, at least based on their past release patterns.
As an aside, the GNOME/KDE thing is about to get very interesting... GNOME 2 is like a couple weeks from release, and it's going to be the default desktop for Solaris, HP-UX, and (of course) Red Hat. All of these are major "enterprise" players. (I wouldn't be *too* surprised to see AIX follow suit.... any IBM people care to comment? Heh... CAN you?
KDE is easier to develop (Score:5, Insightful)
What turned me definitely to KDE was the API. I was used to MFC, so the C++ toolkits in Qt and KDE seemed natural to me, being at the same time simpler and more powerful than MFC.
On the other hand, Gtk reminded me a lot of the Motif hell one had to go through when coding GUIs for VAXen and Unices. I don't know how it has evolved lately, but the last time I tried to create something using Gtk there wasn't even an easy way to write inclined lines of text. My first try at a GUI program in Linux was plotting a xy graph, and in Gtk I couldn't find any obvious way to write the vertical axis label. Also there wasn't any good IDE for Gnome, while Kdevelop compares favorably with Visual C++.
Anyway, for my taste, KDE is better than Gnome as a final user as well. For instance, every time I have to open a file in Gimp I realize how much better the KDE file open dialog is.
Re:Not interested ... not true more like (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm skimming the whitepaper now, and actually page 12 lists both "KDE 3 minimal system" and "GNOME 2 minimal system" as "Essential Functionality", which reads to me as "Required to be UL certified"
This also means my parent post is a troll, as it's uninformed.
WTF?! Acrobat Reader?! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:WTF?! Acrobat Reader?! (Score:2)
Re:WTF?! Acrobat Reader?! (Score:2, Insightful)
To a regular Joe. Acrobat means something. Kernel # means nothing.
software developers v users - the battle continues (Score:2, Interesting)
The trouble with de facto standards is that no-one can be held accountable for not adhering to them. Debian uses a non-standard cramfs initial ramdisk by default, it doesn't include a gawk-awk softlink (or didn't, the last time I checked), yet Debian is one of the top three Linux distributions. I would never rate it that highly but I'm only a software developer. The users are the ones who decide which distribution wins and which one loses, and thus which de facto standards should stay and which should go.
The fact is, software developers can code to anyset of standards, so long as it sits still long enough. Moving targets are very hard to hit. If the distros sit still, the software devlopers will have an easier time but the act of sitting still might cost the distributions some users.
If the distributions would get together and write an API to let software developers figure out more easily where everything is, rather than expect the developers to customize their apps every time to make allowances for all those eccentricities, it would be enough, IMO. If Debian, Red Hat and SuSE would sit down at a table and hammer out the format of /etc/my-b0rken-distro.conf, I would have far less trouble on my hands on a daily basis.
Re:software developers v users - the battle contin (Score:4, Insightful)
Debian can hardly be described as a moving target , given it's 18-month release cycle.
If you want to measure consitency of behaviour over time, I think you'll find that Debian would win hands down.
If you want to measure some sort of "least surprise quotient" when a random *nix user comes across a distro for the first time, I think Debian would win again.
As for the awk link, mawk has been providing such a link since Mar 1997, and gawk since before Dec 1995, so I don't know when you last looked, but perhaps you should look again.
New Distro ? (Score:3, Informative)
So, who read the presentation? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. United Linux is based on LSB and LiN18ux standards. NOT on their own, like so many slashdotters seem to think. This is a very GOOD thing.
2. They will be offering business level certifications for "UnitedLinux" that will certify you on all of their distros for taking just the one set of certs.
3. They have the backing of a shitload of major players... IBM, INTEL, and AMD to name a few.
4. They are willing to accept any other company into this "United Linux" conglomerate who wants to join. Open doors are good.
5. This is not a single distro. Each vendor is selling their own versions of Linux as they see fit, but the rub is that all of these distros that are "Powered by UnitedLinux" will be compatible with eachother.
Basically, this is just an agreement by these companies to make their Linux distros interoperable. That's it. This is a big push towards standards, and it is EXACTLY what Linux has needed. I hope it takes off, and that they get RedHat on board as well.
Read the fine print (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoth unitedlinux.com: "Majority of enterprise system and software vendors including AMD, [...] , Progress Software, and SAP, support effort to create standard Linux platform".
I wouldn't call this "backing". Backing implies a commitment of money or resources which is not mentioned AFAIK.
Let's hope they do a better job of being open than Caldera or SuSE did.
Good branding (Score:2)
I've written here before that the Linux world looks like too much of an anarchy to business and it's good to see that others agree
I'm almost tempted to say that - if I was developing this brand - I'd use a name other than Linux to really distance my offer from hackerdom.
Some might see that as riding on the backs of hackers to make money, and I suppose they'd be right. But this would merely be the logical continuation of the motivation of those who sought to distance Linux and other projects from the tag of "free" software.
Before I get flamed - I am personally very happy to be a Linux person, but I'm not trying to sell anything either.
Standards (Score:2)
Seems like SuSE is the "Standard" (Score:2, Interesting)
Also interstingly enough, SuSE 8.0 was fully LSB compliant, the first commercial distro to be so.
My guess is that the base OS will be SuSE. Who's management tools they decide to go with is still anyone's guess. Maybe it'll be a whole new set entirely.
GNU (Score:2, Insightful)
Gnu is Not Unitedlinux
Personal analysis. (Score:2)
Committee method of design: Lame
Idea that if it isn't prepackaged and retard-proof, it has no place in the business world: Lame.
Caldera is involved: Lame.
Free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice on their FAQ there's a question that says: "Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?" And of course the answer is yes.
What bugs me here is their implicit use of the phrase "for non-commercial uses". As far as I know, "how Linux is freely available today" is free as in Free. You can use the distros for any purpose you see fit, including making millions, for free. You only pay if you want fancy CDs, manuals, support contracts, tech support, etc.
Is this just a bad choice of wording, or does this mean they'll try to impose some licensing or distribution scheme aimed at making "free" only apply to non-commercial use?
You're right, Taco. You DON'T get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try as you may to state otherwise, the fact remains that glibc is glibc, libm is libm, the kernel is the kernel, etc. Red Hat, Caldera, et al differentiate themselves using little chunks of code like package managers and installers, but when the system is installed it's all just Linux. The idea that an ISV has to port something to lots of different flavors of the same OS is silly. It's not like the old days of UNIX where the different flavors actually WERE different. Linux systems should be able to run Linux apps without going through ridiculous gyrations with filesystem heirarchies, RPM versions, etc.
Currently, ISVs can't rely on the base system of all Linux distros being consistent. An effort like United Linux offers a predictable, consistent base on which ISVs can port their software.
UL won't take over the entire Linux market, but it should. There's absolutely no reason companies like Red Hat, Sun, and HP can't use UL as the base for its distro (remember, Red Hat doesn't shine because it uses a special Red Hat glibc; it's the installer, the package management, and the branding that Red Hat is known for, not the base system). With the rising cost of creating, maintaining, and supporting these Linux distros that so many of you love to get for free, eventually companies like Red Hat, Sun, and HP will need to consider cutting what is literally a pointless duplicated effort.
All ISVs and OEMs care about from a technical standpoint is the base system and its ability to run apps or run on an OEM's hardware. That's it. The marketing folks love brand names, but what's under the hood is spooky magic to them so they don't care. If all Linux distros (at least RPM based distros) adopted UL as its base, Linux may actually have a chance to take over the IT world.
In my view, the folks who DON'T adopt UL are the ones that will be fragmenting Linux. No single point of failure, support organizations worldwide... UL just makes sense.
just Linux (and a small matter of testing) (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, distributions also differentiate themselves by adding patches to things like glibc, GCC, and the kernel.
As I mentioned in "Red Hat's little forks [slashdot.org]," there are over 100 patches in kernel-2.4.18-4.src.rpm, including a 20 MB whopper from Alan Cox. As I recall, SuSE incorporated ReiserFS, JFS, and LVM before they were in the Linus kernel.
Wearing your optimistic programmer hat, it should still just work. Wearing the pessimistic hat of a user or a tester, it has to be retested. It will be interesting to see the extent to which a "Powered by UnitedLinux" distribution is allowed to add patches.
The FAQ is not a good sign (Score:4, Interesting)
I've just read the United Linux FAQ [unitedlinux.com].
It's obviously written by a marketing person who hasn't read the Cluetrain [cluetrain.com] Manifesto. The answers all read like ``United Linux is wonderful, the sun shines out of it's arse''.
There is no discussion of questions that no doubt will be frequently answered, such as:
It won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
This will not work. When two people sell exactly the same product (think lettuce) it becomes a commodity and the margins fall to nearly zero. So manufacturers have a mandate to add distingushing features so that they sell a non-commodity.
It was tried many times with posix, open88 and other group of standards put together by two-bit players...
I get it (Score:3, Insightful)
They all appear to see this as "The Way" to finally 1) shirk off the *need* for MS with their business customers because, hey, we have a "Standardized" Linux here... (insert finger tapping PHB's looking impressed) 2) do this Linux thing easier!.. multitudes of distros, RPMs, GUIs, yada, yada, yada.... smeg that. 1 standard distro with infinite possiblities! (if you don't LIKE KDE, you can ditch it... try "ditching" major portions of Windows)
this is a positive move for everyone.
Simplicity that costs a ton of money and gives you no options and sends back your information to MS without your knowledge is a bad thing.. its Windows.
Simplicity is a good thing, not a bad thing.. its Mac OS.
Simplicity with modifyability is not a good thing, its a kick-ass thing... its a standardized Linux that can be changed to suit your needs OR can be left alone to be simple.
How is this not a good thing? I don't get it.
KDE 3.0.1 and GCC 3.1 issues (Score:5, Informative)
I have been trialing GCC 3.1 and the C++ compilation is a major improvement over past version of GCC. Being C based the GNOME 1.4 and GNOME 2 libraries and most applications compiles and runs without too much hassle. However KDE 3.0.1 [kde.org] is somewhat more problematic, even when neither debugging support nor strict syntax checking is enabled..
This is not the fault of either the KDE or GCC developers. KDE was coded to support the "older" C++ style of pre GCC 2.9x and Microsoft's compilers and the GCC Team is following the new C99 [gnu.org] & ISO 14882 C++ [gnu.org] standards.
After kludgeing around the defects in the older GCC C++ template and library implementations, GCC 3.1 C++ is real joy to use. It makes it possible to program C++ in a completely new styles [att.com], that IMO can be far more productive.
It is difficult layering one type of programing style over another, the older C++ style libraries certainly make Windows programing a pain.
Would it not be better to wait for the KDE team to port KDE to a pure GCC 3.1/ISO 14882 style?
At the very least the debugging support is required for GCC's Profile Driven Optimizations [gnu.org] which can greatly improve application performance.
GNOME 2.0 is due for release soon enough, at the very least the GNOME libraries and core should also be included at a United Linux "main component".
What does this mean for features? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. They adopt apt-rpm as a layer in their installation and upgrade process.
2. They include advanced features like XFS and ACLs from the base installer.
3. They keep YAST.
4. They support up and coming platforms, like ia64.
5. They make it easy for third parties to add proprietary features to their distro.
RedHat favored by editor? (Score:4, Insightful)
For alot of people in the US RedHat may be synonimous with Linux, it isn't the other way around for the rest of us. RH has a strong base in the US but take a look to the rest of the world will you? There is Red Flag linux in China, Mandrake and SuSE are pretty popular in Europe where RedHat isn't an obvious choice.
In fact, globally looking this could be what Linux was holding back. Like several others have pointed out, it's a pain to write for Linux because you have to take into account all the various distro's with there slightly different way of placing conf files etc. United Linux could be changing all this. An ISV can now just write the program once and that's it. No more extra development time to see if the app will run on both RH or Suse. No more pain in the ass to see which lib version is used by Mandrake istead of the one used by Caldera. The list could be as long as you want.
The fact that RH isn't in the list of participating distro's doesn't mean they couldn't be a part of this, they can join whenever they want and without any problem. This is not meant to compete with RH. This is meant to UNITE all distro's to comply to a standard base to give linux a big boost into corporate minds. Why is Linux still marginally used in office's? Not because it's lack of power and stability. It's the apps department. Why aren't ISV's working on linux versions? Because they don't know which distribution to target. RH, SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake and Debian are all too diferent from each other to just port an app once and then be done with it. You have to write different versions. This costs developerstime and thus money which they rather spend at doing something that will give them a steady revenue without too much hassle..
Please do not start bashing other distro's because they do something different then the one you favor. You should instead be focussing on learning why they do this and if what they do will help Linux or not. See more then just your personal feelings or needs. try to see the big picture because before you know it Linux wil be dismissed as another platform that's not viable to be used in corporate environments. And if you don't want it there perhaps try to look for a new os to toy with then..
BE CAREFUL!!!!!!! united linux may be BAD to users (Score:3, Interesting)
Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released.
I think there is danger in this message, something that came from the dark side of the force:
Download free versions: means that will be some non-free version
For non-comercial: means that comercial user will have to pay (looks like M$ stuff)
Similar to how linux is available: means that will not be like linux, but similar, no GPL? not free software? is like M$ closed stuff?
So, people, as this messages continue on their WEB SITE, as they are not GPL and because they want to earn money over their copy's, let's stick with red hat, mandrake and debian!
let them burn!!
Suse 9 (powered by UnitedLinux) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:3, Informative)
"Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux will collaborate on the development of the UnitedLinux distribution in order to provide migration pathes from their former releases to UnitedLinux. However, each UnitedLinux partner will still have its own Linux distribution that is "Powered by UnitedLinux." Existing long-term relationships with leading hardware and software companies - as well as the current UnitedLinux partners - guarantee the compatibility of UnitedLinux with relevant business solutions. HW and SW manufacturers have the opportunity to join the alpha and beta test circles, thus reassuring in an early stage that UnitedLinux supports their products."
If I read this correctly, it means that the future versions of SuSe, Connectiva, etc will be forks of the main United Linux distro.
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually took the time to check the website before asking the question, that is actually explained there:
Next Steps
* Each UnitedLinux partner continues to sell Linux under its familiar Linux brand and product, "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Caldera OpenLinux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Conectiva Linux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* SuSE Linux Enterprise Server "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* Turbolinux "Powered by UnitedLinux"
* One core development team benefiting several partners * Other Linux companies invited to join
Furthermore:
Competition
How will Linux companies in UnitedLinux still compete?
Pricing: Each company will set its own product pricing
Channels: Retail stores, reseller channels, direct, etc.
Support: Each company runs its own support team
Education: Independent training and certification
Professional Services: Custom implementations
Applications: Management, administration, messaging, etc.
OEM: Industry partners still choose products to bundle
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:2)
Geography: each company already has more customers in some part of the world.
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:2)
If you actually took the time to check the website before asking the question, that is actually explained there
Took the time. Couldn't wade past the marketing.
Given what you've quoted above, I predict that this effort will end up a minor footnote in the history of Linux that lasts for maybe a year and then disintegrates.
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:2)
So you're saying the fact that IBM allied itself with this little known company called microsoft didn't have any effect?
Arguably, that wasn't an alliance, that was a purchasing decision. If, however, you want to call it an alliance, I'll call it the exception that proves the rule.
The X Consortium is probably a better example of an exception, but note that it never led to the sort of innovation that X on Linux did - I mean, c'mon, CDE? Is there anything that screams "This is not your a desktop system" more than CDE?
In reality, I see this as something IBM might jump on to, and if they do this could be one of the best things to happen to linux since apache.
I'm sure IBM will endorse it. And RedHat. And if IBM starts shipping UnitedLinux, then RedHat will become LSB and Li18nux compliant and become UnitedLinux, at which point we're back to step 1.
This just seems to me like a whole lot of marketing around compliance to existing standards, and like any multi-company marketing event, it will sooner or later collapse for lack of substantiality.
Re:So what happens to the distributions? (Score:2)
I don't know about Li18nux, but Red Hat has already said they will release an LSB-compliant distro this year.
3 distributions less actually!! :-) (Score:2, Informative)
Although in name they will all still exist. The will all be 'Powered by UnitedLinux' and have a couple of things tacked on. At the core they will be the same distribution. See page 11 of this PDF [unitedlinux.com].
Re:Yet Another Linux Distribution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more a combining of already existing distros under one umbrella and the implementation of and adherance to the LSB Standard.
In short... This is a GOOD THING(tm).
Competing with RedHat can actually be easy once it becomes known that the new consortium/distro follows a set standard - LSB. The standard means that software written to the LSB should ALWAYS run with no problems on a compliant distro.
Re:Yet Another Linux Distribution (Score:2, Insightful)
What you perceive as arrogance or ignorance is neither, usually. Many times people in the U.S. fail to take a world view of things like this because it doesn't matter. SuSE may be very, very popular in Europe - but it's a bit player here. It really doesn't matter one damn bit to someone in St. Louis or Seattle how popular a brand is in Berlin or Tokyo if it's marginal here.
The same goes for Windows vs Linux. Unfortunately the U.S. is far behind other contries in adopting Linux. The unfortunate reality in the U.S. is that if you're looking for a job or planning an IT strategy Microsoft products are going to be a large part of that compared to a business in Europe that might be able to ignore Microsoft completely. That doesn't mean someone's ignorant of the situation in Europe - it simply doesn't matter to someone in the U.S. because it's not the situation here. Unless it applies to you, it's basically just useless abstract knowledge.
I'm not saying that the average person in the U.S. couldn't stand to know a bit more about the rest of the world, but you're just pursuing a personal bias here.
Re:finally (Score:2)
Re:They could have picked a better name (Score:2)
I think it should be called "Motherfucking Linux" and they should have Samuel L Jackson advertising it. I'd like to hear Mr Jackson say "Motherfucking Linux will whip Microsoft's ass". I'd pay good money for that.
Re:Where is the Download link? (Score:2)
Ans when was the last time a company announced a product available 'Q4' and actually shipped it before the last week of December? In this business, Q1 means March/April, Q2 means June/July, Q3 means Sept/Oct, and Q4 means "God I hope we get it out the door by Christmas!"
Re:Where is the Download link? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:United Linux is KDE based (Score:3, Insightful)
40%? Yeah, right...
Red Hat is Gnome-centric distro, yet many KDE-users run RH. SuSE in KDE-centric distro, and you can run Gnome easily on it.