Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Upheavals In UnitedLinux 152

Posted by Hemos from the oh-where-has-the-consolidated-standard-gone dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I found this story on UnixReview.com - vnunet has some commentary about UnitedLinux and it sounds like it's struggling." I dunno - I plan on still giving them the benefit of the doubt, and see what comes out. Heck, I might even try installing a machine with the "united distro" - but it's still an interesting pickle some of the primary members are in.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Upheavals In UnitedLinux More

Upheavals In UnitedLinux

Comments Filter:
  • I don't see a reason for this project. I think redhate and mandrake are doing fine makeing some what of a standard then we also have source code as a standard... FP

    • Re:personal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by batboy78 ( 255178 )
      In my opinion Suse has always been one of the best distros out there. What kind of market share does Redhat hold anyway. I haven't seen any solid figures on the number of enterprises that use one distro as opposed to another. I know when I was the only linux geek in my shop, we all ran Suse. But another (more hardcore) friend of mine, decided that all the people in his office would run Debian. Who makes that call one way or another? Plus being the only linux capable person in the office, is great job security.
      • Don't forget Slackware :-D
        • I've just turned from Slackware to Debian! :) Administrator's dream come true...
          • Really, what turned you off about slackware and onto debian? Haven't used debian myself so I don't nkow much about it.
            I like the KISS philosophy of slack and find it the most stable.
            Have to try gentoo as well in that respect...
            • I also appreciate Slackware's approach, but quite frankly you will pollute your system quite badly over the years as you install all sorts of new stuff by hand. Debian's apt-* tools are brilliant, but that doesn't mean you're pinned down to them. You can still choose to compile certain types of packages yourself, or Debianize them first, but that's a lot of work. Apt-get lets you easily download and install updates and overall, Debian's approach seems sane and doesn't kill the expert's desire to be close to the bare metal.
              • ...but quite frankly you will pollute your system quite badly over the years as you install all sorts of new stuff by hand.

                That's true, but you could still use rpms (my annoyance with rpms on slack is that dependencies are NEVER satisfied for some reason).

                Also, there's the discontinued autoslack, and the packaging utilities to use, but I don't have much exp with those yet.

                All I can say is that I have learned more from running slackware than any other distro, by FAR. It seems to most "standard".
                • Sure, the boot scripts are much more straightforward than on any other distro. You are *expected* to do everything by hand. But after a few years, you'll kick yourself when everything on your system starts getting old and you have to upgrade your compiler, glibc, libstdc, XFree86, KDE and RPM by hand. All I eventually did on Slackware 7.1 was upgrade, it seemed. Also, now I have this burning urge to compile everything by hand myself and it gets in the way with Debian's apt tools. :) Thanks alot, Slackware! :)

                  Anyway, you've pointed out the problems with other packaging systems yourself, but apt actually seems to work as it should. And you can still do what you want if you like; just think twice about what it'll do to the system if you'd like to use the tools again.
        • I've been using slack for years, and we've installed it on all our servers. It's always well maintained, and they seem to make sure everything works together in a new release.

          I've been itching to try the new Mandrake, though, since I've heard so many good things about it. Everyone keeps saying it's so easy to install that your mother could work it.

          • Mmmm, slack...

            Yes, I've tried mandrake (8.0 at last point), however, and my annoyance with it is exactly what slack is not:
            a whole mess of "bleeding-edge" applications (end-users do the bleeding) that are soooo buggy or misconfigured (permissions,dep,etc).

            But I think slack and mandrake complement each other, the latter for the desktop user who just wants to install and play dvds, listen to music, browse web, email, etc.

            I went to slack after red hat (don't get me started) and mandrake. I tried it on a whim, expecting it to be more of the same, but loved how simple,minimal,and well-documented (esp. config files) it was.
  • they've never really seemed all that 'united' to me...
  • Could this be due to the discussion for subscription based liscensing?

  • Hope it works... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by E-Rock-23 ( 470500 ) <lostprophyt@NospAm.gmail.com> on Thursday September 05, 2002 @11:56PM (#4204760) Homepage Journal
    A Linux standard would be nice, that's for sure. But I still kinda like having the choice of flavors with different distros. Gives you options for specific tasks.

    The focus should be Linux on the Desktop. The only thing holding it back are the companies who refuse (or are prevented by Microsoft) to port their apps to Linux. Come on, people. Give it up!
    • What's an example of a company that is prevented from porting an app to linux by Microsoft?
      • Well, MS likes to prevent PC makers from shipping PCs with anything but Windows on them. Who's to say that they don't apply this same pressure to software makers? Just a wild guess on my part, really. Should have clarified that as such. My bad.

        • Re:Hope it works... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:47AM (#4204904)
          Who's to say that they don't apply this same pressure to software makers? Just a wild guess on my part, really.

          No, the problem is threefold (at least)
          1) Internal apps. Need to be rewritten for the new OS. And believe me, a LOT of the company is run from 'Mary in accountings' custom spreadsheet.
          2) User and help desk training. Can't drop a week out of production to roll out the new software, and then train the users on its use. And no, it is NOT seamless for the users.
          3) Client compatibility. You MUST be able to trade documents with *all* of your clients. If Joe Blow from General Motors sends you a complex xls, you'd better be able to read it.
          • Microsoft are suffering from the same problem... we don't have any customers on XP yet (many of them are still on Win95) and I estimate it'll be 2/3 years before we're ready to start using it - the domain controllers are still NT4 because there are no Win2k drivers for our RAID arrays. We tried putting an active directory machine on the network but it screwed around with the NT4 boxes (about half the developers are still on NT4) and it got pulled (can't see the point anyway it doesn't seem to offer anything over a standard DC in our situation).

            Basically, for companies, upgrading is something that happens only rarely, and is planned for months (even years) before it happens. And if the existing solution still works the upgrade will probably never happen - which is why you still come across Novell networks sometimes.

            MS are trying to force people to upgrade by refusing support for 'old' versions of software... this has resulted in the wholesale conversion to Linux of not a few companies (and quite a bit of local government over here, until MS relented and agreed a special deal) because of the related hardware costs, etc.

    • Re:Hope it works... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How is Microsoft preventing companies from porting their apps to Linux? It seems the marketplace is preventing that, not Microsoft. If Linux users would pay for their software instead of downloading it off of P2P or Warez sites, the Linux platform would have bundles of software. It seems to me that the only things holding back Linux ports is piracy and the rampant anal lust among GNU/Linux users.
      • How is Microsoft preventing companies from porting their apps to Linux?

        Sometimes it's obvious things, like buying a company and killing off non-MS development. Sometimes it's contractual -- offering some sort of 'favor' in return for an exclusivity contract. Sometimes it's blackmail -- like the way that they withheld strategic information from IBM over their insistence on developing OS/2 or treatened Intel over research for OS-agnostic changes to the '386 instruction set.

        Sometimes it's structural, like the way that they wilfully (and illegally) polluted Java to make OS-independent programming more difficult.

      • Linux software is not found in Warez sites since it is mostly OSS, which as you do know is available for free.

        Fucking trolls...
    • ok, I guess "flavors" are for specific tasks but I really don't see it that way.

      When I install a distro I tend to do what *I* want w/it (something that is really not possible w/Windows). I ran Slackware back in the day, then RedHat for a while (I had a UDB and I liked having the same distro on all systems), then I went to Debian b/c I wanted apt-get and the knowledge that it will be steadily taken care of.

      So, where I understand that the "corporate types" and the new-users and the UI lovers have their distros, I really don't see those as "specific tasks".

      Until I see distros like "LinuxNT" and "Linux98 Home Edition" I am really going to stick w/my guns and say flavors of Linux are just that, different ideas on what Linux should be. Not just say they are for different tasks.

      Just my worthless .02

    • Re:Hope it works... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tokki ( 604363 )
      Linux on the desktop has failed for a great number of reasons other than Microsoft's influence and the lack of ports in general. An aging GUI (X11) for one, and the lack of any kind of semblence of a "plug and play" setup that the other commercial OSes have long enjoyed (Mac OS X, pre-X, BeOS, M$ Windows). That is what consumers demand in a desktop.

      It's one thing to get a Linux box up and running and looking pretty for Grandma, but as soon as you try to deviate from the narrow scope of a Linux install (and other open source operating systems), such as changing resolution, adding a scanner, plugging in printer, Linux just doesn't compare. Not yet anyway.

      • Re:Hope it works... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Erik Hensema ( 12898 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @02:46AM (#4205141) Homepage

        You are absolutely right. The situation is improving, but Linux isn't there yet.

        For example, I can't understand why a user cannot change the resolution of his screen. It's trivial to implement. Let root build the system XF86Config, and let users control only the "Screen" section in their .xf86config. Build a nice GUI tool around it, and you're ready.

        The only thing you'll have to work out is changing resolution when starting from XDM/KDM/GDM.

        • Re:Hope it works... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tal197 ( 144614 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @06:02AM (#4205507) Homepage Journal
          For example, I can't understand why a user cannot change the resolution of his screen. It's trivial to implement. Let root build the system XF86Config, and let users control only the "Screen" section in their .xf86config. Build a nice GUI tool around it, and you're ready.

          I think the command you're looking for is 'xrandr' (rotate and resize).

          $ xrandr --help
          usage: xrandr [options]
          where options are:
          -display <display> or -d <display>
          -help
          -o <normal,inverted,left,right,0,1,2,3>
          or --orientation <normal,inverted,left,right,0,1,2,3>
          -q or --query
          -s <size> or --size <size>
          -v or --verbose
          or --screen <screen>

          • Re:Hope it works... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by dozer ( 30790 )
            I think the command you're looking for is 'xrandr' (rotate and resize).

            No, it's not. This allows a user to zoom in on a portion of his desktop. However, it doesn't allow the user to change its size or bit depth. Why? Because this is impossible in XF4.2. This is insane. Mac and Windows have been able to do this from day one.

            • However, it doesn't allow the user to change its size or bit depth. Why? Because this is impossible in XF4.2. This is insane. Mac and Windows have been able to do this from day one.

              Considering that on "day one" of the Macintosh, it had some tiny 8" black and white binary display with exactly one video mode, I think you're wrong there.

              Considering that even as late as Windows 3.0, GDI.EXE required a full GUI restart to change resolutions; that Windows 3.1 could change resolutions but *usually* required a GUI restart to change color depth, I'll refute that one too.

              There's more to changing the resolutions than just fixing up X's desktop extents. Any processes which make assumptions about screen resolutions need to be notified and react to resolution changes. Window managers need to shove windows back onto the screen if the desktop shrinks. Panels need to realign to new desktop edges. Any special DRI 3D or video playback windows need to realign their video mixers to the new locations.

              I agree it's got to be done, and soon. But really, very few people have a valid need to change resolutions on the fly. Usually, it's just one immersive full-screen app (like a DirectX game) which needs to reduce resolution for performance reasons. In those cases, I think X would be better off just suspending one server and starting a whole new X server for the special application at a different resolution, much like chvt does for text consoles.

        • You can change the resolution as a user, its called <CONTROL><ALT><keypad +>|<keypad ->.
        • ++'+'
          ++'-'

          Works fine for me.

          However the less flipent answer is for the window manager developers to add this functionality into thier control pannels.

          As a quick asside, howmuch of the bloat on MS install CD's is due to the device capabilities DB.
          • This changes only the physical resolution, the virtual resolution says the same. I want to be able to change the virtual resolution as a user (working with virtual != physical sucks anyway).
          • As a quick asside, howmuch of the bloat on MS install CD's is due to the device capabilities DB.

            Hey, if it increases functionality and ease of use, it ain't bloat.

        • Would you tell me why people want to change resolution or color depth all the time?
          Joe Average doesn't do that. He uses whatever resolution and color depth is set as default.

      • Re:Hope it works... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        "Linux on the desktop has failed for a great number of reasons other than Microsoft's influence ... as soon as you try to deviate from the narrow scope of a Linux install (and other open source operating systems), such as changing resolution, adding a scanner, plugging in printer, Linux just doesn't compare. Not yet anyway."

        Sounds like the problem is a lack of influence from MS. I think that a lot of people are so anti-MS that they can't fathom the idea that there are aspects of Windows that are ideal.

        This is not a troll. This is an observation. The problem that tokki mentioned with the 'changing resolution', for example, bugged the hell out of me when I tried to switch to Linux. Maybe I'm just too used to Windows (good possibility, really) but I found Linux to be rather scattered. It didn't help that the important commands were missing vowels.

        I hope that the Linux Community, particularly those that want Linux to be a leading Desktop OS, look into the things about Windows that people DONT complain about and try to incorporate those as well. I think Linux is nearly ready for prime time, it just needs some design work on the UI.

      • Also, the development environment for Linux GUI apps is precarious at best. When a developer takes a look at Linux, what choices do they have? They could develop their app on the basic X wiget set. It would be ugly, and therefor have almost no consumer appeal, but at least it would work on all X11 installs.

        Or, they could develop for KDE and/or Gnome, but a developer, commercial or open source, wouldn't know if the user would have KDE or Gnome installed.

        Or, they could go the Mozilla route, and write their own font and widget sets. That would take a while.

        Either way, Linux and other open sources operating systems are a basket case for desktop development currently.

  • Consolidation great for business, but this..? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dock ( 89815 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:05AM (#4204793) Homepage
    I've never tried any of the distros made by the people behind UnitedLinux, but I liked the idea that even if I found myself straying from my favorite, there were always quite a few other *quality* places to go to get something just a little different. Just because Redhat is growing by leaps and bounds doesn't mean everyone in the game has to come together just to compete. We're talking about things that usually take a while in an industry to happen, when it does a few things occur. Competition decreases, and consumer satisfaction bottoms out with it. Do we really need that kind of thing already?

    I know, I'm being a little dramatic, there are tons and tons of distros rolling around but when a few big ones jump into bed, they become something that places like Redhat do have to deal with..I guess the point is why now? Redhat in the grand scheme of things is still pretty small, there's plenty of time to ramp up competition and let everyone use a field of quality products rather than a few.

    Maybe of they re-visit this idea in a few years, it'll be more viable. Until them, they should all just chill and keep growing up a bit.
    • I love Dock. He is my hero and everything he says is great and wonderful. But seriously, he's right. Seems like this [consolidation] was a premature move. "Why now?" is right.

    • Re:Consolidation great for business, but this..? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      United Linux is not really a distro. It's more like a proof of concept. The idea is a group of distro makers get together and try to assimilate idea together to have a compatible product. The second aim is to show the business world that linux does have standards. UnitedLinux isn't going to be a distro that's gonna be sold or compete with Red Hat in the business market. Once the framework of a linux system is established, the respective distro makers will integrate it into their _own_ products. So what UnitedLinux really will become is SuSE, Caldera, Conectiva, etc., but even being based on UnitedLinux, they will still be different, but they will have compatibility and standards across the board. All of this is to promote linux in general to businesses, not reduce choices.

      This is what I thought UnitedLinux was always for. This is what I read off the UnitedLinux website when UnitedLinux was announced. Please check it out. I doubt that it has really changed. They said on that site which
      is still clear in my mind: UnitedLinux is not really meant to be sold like a distro.
    • Why now? To stay in business, that's why. As good as it is, SuSE is still struggling, and they're the most dominant member of the consortium. With the recent moves made by Caldera/SCO Group and TurboLinux it should be obvious that they're having trouble as well. I'm sure they would have held off if they could--Hell, they probably would have been happy to go their separate ways--but that's just not feasible given RedHat's current market share and the state of the economy.

  • SCO Linux (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by WetCat ( 558132 )
    Hey, they even can call that distro as SCO Linux! It might be a viable move, IMHO.
    They can integrate the stuff from SCO to it, because they have rights to SCO.
    SCO was a reputable trademark years ago...
  • Definition supplied by Dictionary.com

    United:

    1. Combined into a single entity. 2. Conserned with, produced by,or resulting from mutual action. 3. Being in harmony; agreed.

    Pull it together guys!

  • Choice is a Good Thing ! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrLinuxHead ( 528693 ) <mrlinuxhead@ya h o o . com> on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:34AM (#4204865) Homepage Journal

    Out of all the Linux distos, I am using Redhat 7.3 on the servers and Mandrake 9 rc1 as a workstation. I have tried most of them at one time. ASP Linux, Caldera, SuSE, Immunix, Lycoris, Vector, Debian, Astaro, all have brought a little something unique to the table.

    What this will create is a organic, cross-pollinization of ideas, to improve over time, all of the independent distros out there. No single vendor has got it perfect yet, and all of the distros are working madly to give their distro a little something unique. The true determining factor will be standardization. No one wants to be the lone man out as far as file structure, /etc/rc.d/ layout, or whatever.

    That being said, I think most enterprises want a solid, stable, clean disto that does not swing too wildly from release to release. Users may want to tinker with the bleeding edge, but business want a tool that helps their bottom line.

  • Why people try to re-invent the wheel? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unixmaster ( 573907 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:38AM (#4204875) Journal
    ...while we already have standarts...

    See :
    http://www.linuxbase.org/

    and If you think a Linux uses RFCs ( www.faqs.org/rfc ) as base and still a Linux system is POSIX ( http://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG15 ) standarts compliant.

    So why try to create standarts again?
    • It seems to me I have a different understanding of the term "re-invent the wheel".

      As described in the whitepaper available from unitedlinux.com section 2.3 lists all the standards it tries to comply with. Listed there are FHS, LSB and others.

      What comes to all RFC and POSIX, I simply fail to see how a common base for distributions will constitute to reinventing the wheel.

      Or to snip from the FAQ:
      "UnitedLinux is a standards-based, ...", the use of the word based doesn't in my opinion imply much of reinventing.

      • 1 - How does RFCs help?

        Gee try to connect MS Exchange Server and you will see why there are RFCs and why they make standatisation

        2- They dont re-invent the wheel?

        Then why they close the source as Linux applications are already %99 Open Source . So they will bring new standarts IMHO .

  • open source == vendor neutral (Score:3, Informative)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:45AM (#4204896) Journal
    > Eddie Bleasdale..."It's a stupidity because open source is by definition vendor neutral,"

    by which definition?

    Atleast not real-world definition, open source can be used as a tool for promoting or causing harm to a specific vendor(s). From Open Source Definition [opensource.org] : "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons"

    So is it this? The license may not dicriminate anyone but you can choose to use an open source license when you know that selecting it instead of something else as licensing method discriminates someone. For example, if someone has cumulated capital in some form (wisdom, money, whatever) and then you half this someones capital (even if it was gathered by discrimination) by opensourcing you surely discriminate this someone. That does not mean open source is bad, it's still good atleast in my opinion, but it is not a magic hippiee miracle.

  • commercial != proprietary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by J. Random Software ( 11097 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:48AM (#4204907)
    The whole point [of open source] is that you do not have commercial people developing the code.

    Bull! The point is that nobody has a monopoly on developing the code. Work for hire is welcome, and we're even starting to see it happen more often (and I can't wait for task markets to hit the big time).

    • Exactly. There are quite a few KDE/GNOME/kernel developers paid by Linux distributions. Quotes like this make me wonder whether the whole article wasn't meant to spread FUD about UnitedLinux in the first place. I applaud Slashdot for still posting negative press, but it doesn't make any interesting news...

  • Not to sound negative.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AntiTuX ( 202333 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @12:53AM (#4204922) Homepage
    But it sounded like a bad idea from the start.

    Now, it's been what, a month and a half or so since it went public?

    Nobody took it seriously then, and being as 2 out of the 3 companies involved in it are royally fucked, I don't know why this is such a surprise.

    SCO>Caldera>SCO is fucked, turbolinux is *REALLY* fucked, and conectiva (which makes a great distribution, but I don't know anyone who actually uses it) is insignificant.

    Unitedlinux was just a ploy to get stock prices driven back up. Obviously it didn't work. The market's smarter than that nowadays, after the "let's give 9 million dollars of VC money to shitonastick.com" tech bubble of the late 90's/very early 00's.

    There's a pool going between my group of friends about when VA Ice Cream and Adult Novelties is going to be delisted. I call it VA Ice cream and Adult novelties because they've changed their business plan about 5 times in the last 4 years. Even their CEO bailed out (smart move there, larry [vasoftware.com]. Hope you like that zaurus you put on your corporate american express platinum credit card at linuxworld nyc 2002. I was right behind you in line, and saw it, don't deny it. I'm glad you're still making 200+ grand a year, while most of the developers you brought on who worked for you are now either unemployed, or working at mcdonald's).

    I guess I'm just trolling, but whatever. I'm just tired of people thinking that spin-doctoring bad ideas, throwing up lots of press releases, and *STILL* working off of bad business models will make everything okay.

    here's a hint for those who think that spin-doctoring a bad business model will make everything okay: IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK, THE MARKET IS SMARTER THAN THAT!!!

    Anyhow, enough trolling from me. Later.
    • I have to disagree that the "market" is smart in any way what-so-ever.

      The market isn't smarter, just more cautious during an economic downturn. Investors stuck their cocks in wall sockets, and aren't doing it anymore. I guess that's "smart." Personally what I call smart is not fucking yourself over in the first place.

      If the economy turned around tomorrow, the same type of irrational exuberance would return, don't kid yourself.

      We have seen time and time again that if willing to lie their asses off and spread enough money around, companies can indeed fool the "market," consumers, the government, dogs, cats, etc. There are entire companies dedicated to spin-doctoring, and they do it well. The difference here? UL is a bunch of geeky-amateurs when it comes to actually doing business in the U.S. They should model themselves after oil and defense companies. That might help.

      UL just isn't big enough to do that, nor are they morally bankrupt enough, experienced enough, cash-spouting, etc.

    • Even their CEO bailed out (smart move there, larry [vasoftware.com]. Hope you like that zaurus you put on your corporate american express platinum credit card at linuxworld nyc 2002. I was right behind you in line, and saw it, don't deny it. I'm glad you're still making 200+ grand a year, while most of the developers you brought on who worked for you are now either unemployed, or working at mcdonald's).

      This guys a CEO and only making 200k a year? I dont know what part of the country hes in but that does not seem like enough for the amount of crap a CEO has to deal with. Im a generally lazy person, that level of responsibility and I would want a lot more then just 200k. Then again I think those guys from enron and worldcom are A-O-K
      ::sarcasm::
  • Caldera and TurboLinux are having problems, blah blah blah blah. UnitedLinux isn't going to solve the problems that exist for cross-portability among platforms. The way I see it, there are three camps -- Slackware, Debian and RedHat. Got an app that you want to run on Debian? $>apt-cache search foo Didn't find it? Okay, download the tarball and compile it yourself, and then make a .deb. RedHat? Use apt-for-RPM and do the same thing. Can't find it? Check rpmfind.net. You can risk it with a binary RPM, or you can get the source and do $>rpm --rebuild foobar.src.rpm --target athlon. That applies to any rpm-based distro, which all of the UnitedLinux participants are. Slackware? Just download the tarball and do your thing. If you don't have the right dependency stuff, you go from there. But really and truly, most distros already have what most people need -- cross-portability of 3rd party apps isn't all that important.
  • United Linux is a wasted effort, the effort shouldn't be put into making a "distrobution" standard, as this "promotes" the splintering of groups of software and software would be inclined to be hardcoded to work in a certain way.

    Idealy, effort should be put into making software that is configureable enough to be productive in any environment, not just a standard install of XYZ Linux. Setting a standard in stone, makes the environment less flexible, and software is written to be less flexible as a result.

    Just my $.02
  • "It's a stupidity because open source is by definition vendor neutral," he argued. "The whole point is that you do not have commercial people developing the code." Exactly!
  • but Turbolinux has already sold its Linux business. What would they expect Turbolinux to contribute in this partnership? Turbo?

    So the finihsed product is being called Turbo UnitedLinux? :)

  • Injecting some clarity (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slashdot_commentator ( 444053 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @03:44AM (#4205261) Journal

    This article [mozillaquest.com] may shed some light on the matter.

    Basically, the article implies that United Linux is a marketing scam for one of the distribution midgets. Its an opinion, but it makes sense.

  • Why there is some sense in United Linux (Score:5, Informative)

    by mikeb ( 6025 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @03:53AM (#4205277) Homepage
    I consult most of my time with large corporates on how to adopt Linux. They love the `obvious' stuff like Samba, Squid (kinda - but better content filtering tools would be nice) and the fact that there is the glimmerings of a 3rd-party software market. Examples of the latter are virus checkers, the towering presence of Oracle in the market and so on.

    For them, Open Source is less a religion than a hard-headed business decision. They actually *like* paying money for software, it makes them feel comfortable. The fact that United Linux isn't free is actually a PLUS POINT for them. You can argue that they are crazy or whatever you want, but that's they way they react.

    Now, what they really want is low risk. They want to be sure that the anti-virus software they purchase will install and run without problems. If they are running Oracle, it's crucial that it works properly - no downtime, no data loss.

    So they are sceptical unless the software vendor certifies that the product concerened has been tested and deployed and is supported on the release of Linux that they have chosen.

    It costs software companies a lot of money to do the appropriate testing, train helpdesk staff and do the documentation for each slightly different release of Linux. Even if my-favourite-distro is a byte by byte copy of Redhat 7.x, Oracle will simply say it's not supported because it didn't come with Redhat's logo on it. They will laugh in my face if I ask them to check that my distro is compatible, they will more likely ask me for a huge sum of cash to provide me with certification. They can afford to call the shots.

    That's the real reason behind United Linux. To get 3rd party accreditation and reduce the apparent fragmentation of distributions. So that large companies can say "Oh, yeah, ok, your software is certified to run on the system I use" and then not have to think any more. They don't want to waste time checking that my distro IS Redhat, they just want to see the logo and get the support contract in from the software vendor.

    Mike
  • We already got standards..

    - Linux Standard Base (LSB [linuxbase.org]) (Redhat, Mandrake and SusE have just become LSB-compliant)
    - Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS [slashdot.org])

  • I've *actually* used it (Score:4, Interesting)

    by steve.m ( 80410 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @04:34AM (#4205338) Journal
    I was soooo tempted to use the mod points i've got right now to slap down some of the people who seem to think that making a profit is evil. Get over it - isn't it the great american dream or something?

    Anyhow, I decided to post about what it looks like:(i've got the first closed beta, beta-1)

    It seems heavily SuSE influenced. YaST2 is the installer, so it works just like SuSE (from what I tremember installing SuSE 8 a while back). (there are bugs but it is beta-1... no big deal)

    It's a 2 CD set right now (sources on disk 2), you get all the usual stuff you'd exepct. It's up to date but not bleeding edge: kernel 2.4.19, apache 1.3.26+mod_ssl2.8.10+mod_php4.2.2+mod_perl1.27, etc., Gnome 2, KDE3.0.3, Mozilla 1.0, perl 5.8, gcc3.2. OpenSSH3.4p1 out of the box, all dangerous services disabled in inetd.conf.

    The file system is slightly different than SuSE (docroot in /srv/www/htdocs, floppy and cdrom mount points in /media/*, symlinked into /). Not sure if thats part of LSB. seems like an OK idea.

    note to trolls. shut up and wait until you've used it, you might actually think it's an improvement over SuSE (like I do). It's got a lot of potential, and hopefully will give RedHat a bit of competition. A couple of good distros aimed at corps, fighting it out - it can only be good for Linux uptake and the quality of the distros involved.
    • Whilst I haven't actualy used it. I have talked at some length with Caldera and SuSE about what they are trying to do. The various companies are intending on having thier own distributions which will be "Powered by United Linux". This will most likely be the disk set currently in beta. This will be included on every distribution and will be identical, apart from logo's artwork etc.

      Where they intend to differentiate is with add-ons, which will be on additional disks. e.g Caldera/SCO may bundle some of thier Volution products, SuSE may put out a "with Lotus Notes" edition.

      I see this for the good, as ISV's will have a wider installed base, and therefore more incentive to port to Linux.

    • Re:I've *actually* used it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Friday September 06, 2002 @06:49AM (#4205584) Homepage
      I'd like agree with you ... but, the reason I already don't like and never intend to use UnitedLinux has nothing to do with "that they want to make money."

      It has to do with ruining the things that are best about Linux. I'm sorry, but when Ransom Love mentions things like "per seat licensing", to me, that's a step backwards. Without a doubt, from a technical standpoint, I'm sure UL will be top notch. But until SuSE GPLs YAST2 (it's still closed afaik) and they have more community friendly licensing, then that's totally worthless to me and to everyone in the Linux community.

      Closed Betas? Preffered Partners? No thanks, we get enough of that crap with proprietary software.

      • "... to me and to everyone in the Linux community"

        Wow, its an honor to finally meet the guy who speaks for the entire Linux community. :)

        But seriously, I don't mind in the slightest what UnitedLinux is doing and I am a member of the Linux community (not exactly a note worthy member).

        They are providing all of the source to their base distribution. That's all I need and want. Whiners like you cry just cause you can't download free binaries. Get over it. These people want to earn a profit and I feel that their plan is more than open enough for me. Their plan also stands to simplify application development, a huge barrier to Linux adoption.
        • Having the installer be proprietary is dangerous. Not while it's a minority distribution doing it, but if they become a major distribution, then it will be. And SuSE is a major distribution in Germany, and perhaps other parts of Europe.

          E.g.: A proprietary installer allows one to adopt a proprietary compression scheme. Which allows the code to be encrypted. That's a minor step, and could be sold as a security measure (automatic signing, or some such). License agreements at install time would be an easy addition. They'd meet with small resistance if the first license used was the GPL, but then other software with other licenses could be added. etc.

          • " Having the installer be proprietary is dangerous. "

            Except that Linux installers are a dime a dozen. And most of the major ones are quality and perform identically. The installer can be easily replaced, especially for the core of the distribution which for the most part is simply a list of the standard packages that every distro already includes.

            What I imagine will occur is the rise of a FreeUnitedLinux distro. This distro will consist of the exact same source as UnitedLinux ships. It will simply have been been compiled on a different machine. It will include its own installer, or simply use the installer provided by one of the UnitedLinux distros that isn't propietary. It will include all of the extras that aren't specified in the UnitedLinux specification. This will satisfy anyone who wants free binaries.
          • As I see it, the GPL doesn't protect us from this , anyway.

            If a market leader with a GPL'ed installer owns enough copyright, they could simply re-license the installer as closed source, including a major rewrite and all the customers would be forced to switch or enter the same path as you describe assuming the vendor is that evil/stupid.

            What is preventing Red Hat from doing this, except for the fact that they have a history of being open source ? A (virtual) monopoly is dangerous everywhere, mainly because it can dictate how things should be (aka. defacto standards), and which projects should receive support. I like the fact that SuSE supports the KDE project. If there were only Red Hat, KDE would not have received any support. I don't blame Red Hat for this, they just have other interests. Some of which I benefit from, some of which I don't.

            Besides, if the installer is such a big problem, then why is it that there are so many of them ? Even a handfull of which is GLP'ed. I think the installer is only a small part of which makes a distribution. What matters more is testing of packages and integration. Having the installer be closed source software is a nuissance, because you cannot fix it, though.
  • Why the hell do 3 companies need to team up to make a standards based Linux distribution?! Does this mean that all 3 companies only have 1/3 of their brain capacity? Debian, Gentoo and Sorcerer are technically the best distributions for standards compatibility, since they are all working on source-based projects. So, UnitedLinux is not going to be standards based, and, also, if there is standards based, then I would say that they (UnitedLinux) wouldnt be the people to do it.
  • Just chuck the whole "United Linux" campaign. That's all it is, a marketing device. What these companies should do instead is promote and advertise adherence to the Linux Standard Base. LSB, and its' piece of public mindshare, will be the key to gaining developer and customer trust.
  • If Microsoft manages to alienate enough customers with their new "subscribe to XP" scheme, free software on the desktop might happen sooner then we think.

    Mary in accounting is *not* going to be installing her own OS, and I assume most folks working in IT have had experience with *nix of some kind. I don't think there will be a problem when management finally gets it and tells IT to start installing linux.

    KDE with Open Office and Mozilla can do anything that Win2K can do, now, and it's, you know, *free*.

    I work in a very *nix centered IT group, but they still give us Win2K boxen, and we use the Exceed X server. I am pretty sure that they will never move to XP, and at that point, I would bet we'll go to linux on the desktop.

    And just to make sure I'm not modded down as off-topic, let me just say that United Linux, or if they really have the problems the article suggests, some similar group will be well represented on corporate desktops in the next 2 years.
  • I hope United Linux comes to pass, I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for it.
  • This article didn't have a leg to stand on. There was no real news lately, this article was merely a "summary" of what has happened to companies involved in UnitedLinux, along with an interview of a complete moron, the owner of NetProject (some company we've never heard of - just take a look at their website). The owner was probably the article author's roommate or something, and wanted to get his name in an article.

    The point is, all 4 companies are still dedicated to UnitedLinux and have promised a release by the end of the year. I know Caldera's already got it in Beta stage. You can skimp around and try to play games regarding what the companies are doing on other avenues, but it really doesn't have any effect on the UnitedLinux initiative.
    • That and calling SCO Unix popular... Maybe a better word is notorious. Or maybe it is because we love to hate it ;)

      Lets face it-- SCO was successful because it was well marketed and ran on x86 hardware, not for its technical merits. After all, it was originally a Microsoft product ;)
  • I don't understand why people think LSB makes UnitedLinux unnecessary. UnitedLinux and LSB are not the same thing: the former builds on top of the latter. In addition to the minimalist feature set in LSB, UL specifies a Java runtime, an SQL server, a printing system (CUPS), assorted networking stuff, KDE 3 and Gnome 2 libraries etc. See their white paper. This is a full, rich platform for third party apps. By contrast, LSB does not even specify Qt or Gtk libraries: you can't even target LSB with GUI apps. LSB alone is just not enough as a platform.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"

Close