Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

UnitedLinux Ready for Official Launch 187

Posted by Hemos from the roll-out-the-yet-another-distro-carpet dept.
Anonymous Coward writes " PCWORLD has the word that UnitedLinux has completed beta testing of the first release of its open source Linux operating system and is ready to launch the product as planned next month, said company manager Paula Hunter Tuesday at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in Frankfurt, Germany."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UnitedLinux Ready for Official Launch More

UnitedLinux Ready for Official Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Cool (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder what benefits it will actually give users...

  • Let's get Ellen and Natalie to do commercials for it.

    NOT using my +1 bonus...THIS TIME ;-)

  • open source linux (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:14AM (#4564345)
    as opposed to what? closed source linux

  • Next! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
    Why is Slashdot wasting time with pre-hype about some vaguely defined 'product' that may or may not be released soon when there are so many much more interesting free software projects which are releasing code _now_?

    What is this, marketspeak press release of the month competition?

    • Re:Next! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 )
      "So many much more interesting free software projects?" Like what? The window manager of the week? More KDE or Gnome silliness? Yet another incomplete and not-worth-my-time OpenOffice build? Mozilla, that isn't finished yet?

      I have to say that United Linux is just as interesting as all the other unfinished hobby projects-- er, I mean "free software projects"-- out there.

      (Mod away.)
      • Mozilla, that isn't finished yet?
        When was the last time you actually used mozilla? You appear to have trouble with the concept of constant development and improvement.
        I have to say that United Linux is just as interesting as all the other unfinished hobby projects-- er, I mean "free software projects"-- out there.
        Yeah, like Apache. Who would seriously be using that? And the linux kernel. That's still not finished and it's been over 10 years now! What a load of crap.

        Screw shaking hands with people. I want a machine that lets me slap people over the internet.

        • You appear to have trouble with the concept of constant development and improvement.

          I have trouble with the concept of spending time on features when there are basic usability issues and bugs that remain unresolved.

          You know what makes Apache great? They fix bugs before implementing new features. The result is a rock-solid web server. Look at projects like Gnome or KDE or, yeah, Mozilla. Do they fix bugs or fundamental flaws before implementing new features? No. The result? Really, REALLY shitty software.

          And don't even talk to me about Linux. I stopped using that piece of shit when some genius-- I neither know nor care who; it could have been the Pope for all the difference it would make to me-- decided to make critical changes to the virtual memory system in a point-release on what is officially designated the "stable" branch. That's a load of amateur-hour crap. No more Linux for me, thanks.

          Don't make the false assumption of associated open source software with good software. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the opposite is true. The fact that there are a few notable exceptions-- like Apache-- doesn't change the basic fact.

          Again, I say, "Mod away."
          • Your comparison of Apache and Mozilla is flawed.
            Mozilla development has to put up with pressure from the AOL marketroids.
            Kinda dependent upon who is the client and who is the server, eh?

  • No Info on UnitedLinux.com? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by azaroth42 ( 458293 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:15AM (#4564362) Homepage
    UnitedLinux.com [unitedlinux.com] has no information about this release however?

    From the article:

    Apart from price, UnitedLinux is introducing new features, such as larger memory support, to differentiate itself from the competition, Hunter said.

    Uhh, large memory support is standard in the kernel? Any idea what this /really/ means?

    -- Azaroth

    • UnitedLinux.com has no information about this release however?

      The developers should be getting a memo about hte release tommorow or Friday.

    • Re:No Info on UnitedLinux.com? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Alarion ( 263883 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @12:22PM (#4564929) Homepage
      Apart from price, UnitedLinux is introducing new features, such as larger memory support, to differentiate itself from the competition, Hunter said.

      Uhh, large memory support is standard in the kernel? Any idea what this /really/ means?

      note, that's larger memory support.

      According to this whitepaper [unitedlinux.com] they are increasing the supported memory size from 1gb to 64gb. Here is a quote from it:
      Large memory support
      The Linux kernel is ordinarily limited to 1 GB of physical memory on the x86 32-
      bit platform, with 4 GB of virtual addressing space. With large memory support,
      Linux can take advantage of the Intel Physical Address Extension to support up to

      64 GB of physical RAM and the full 4 GB of virtual addressing space per process.
      In addition, with AMD x86-64, Linux can enable highly efficient flat 64-bit memory
      addressibility for enterprise systems.

  • Nostradomus Like Prediction (Score:4, Funny)

    by ksplatter ( 573000 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:17AM (#4564374)
    I predict that United Linux is going to become the Most Popular OS ever!!!

    -Everyone is going to use it.
    -Windows Will become Obsolete
    -It will revolutionize the computing industry as we know it

    Then we will find out that the Secret Owner of the Company is Bill Gates

    • Re:Nostradomus Like Prediction (Score:4, Funny)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:31AM (#4564514) Homepage
      Actually, since you mentioned Bill Gates...

      He sorta kinda does have a connection to it if you stretch your imagination a little. Six degrees of seperation between Bill and UL.

      1. Gates obviously has ties to Microsoft.
      2. Microsoft once (still does?) own a stake of SCO. I remember seeing a copyright Microsoft somewhere either in the OS or in the documentation once.
      3. SCO was purchased by Caldera.
      4. Caldera was once ruled by Ransom Love (gotta love the name) before he drove SCO almost into the ground.
      5. Ransom briefly tried to lead United Linux when it was first staring.
      6. There is no sixth degree.

      I always found it amusing that Microsoft, in all it's *nix hating glory owned a portion of a *nix company.
      • Microsoft once (still does?) own a stake of SCO. I remember seeing a copyright Microsoft somewhere either in the OS or in the documentation once.

        IIRC, Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO. Xenix was Microsoft Unix running on the 286. Microsoft agreed with AT&T (or someone) not to develop their own Unix.

        Microsoft, in all it's *nix hating glory owned a portion of a *nix company

        Microsoft don't hate Unix per se; a lot of early MS development (again IIRC) was done on Unix-running DECs cross-compiling to 8086. It's just not their own product, and therefore they have a pathological urge to compete with it.
        • "In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers." http://www.computerhope.com/unix/xenix.htm

          I would suggest Microsoft reliscensed Xenix (which was sourcecode liscensed from ATT) rather than "sold" it. Its not like it was developed at MS so much as brokered.

    • Here's the real Quatrain (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:46AM (#4564623) Homepage
      A subarctic creature, through a window slides,
      A fractured system is united,
      The Gates of hell opened,
      A dot is slashed with the multitudes in great debate.

  • Why open source is cool... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:17AM (#4564375) Homepage
    How many months ago did they announce this happening? Now they are already set to release a real product. If this was a collaboration of a bunch of proprietary software companies, they'd still be hashing out legal agreeements. United Linux itself doesn't interest me that much, but the fact that such things are possible does.

    • Re:Why open source is cool... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      United Linux itself doesn't interest me that much,

      It was prudent that you plugged that in. After all, this is Slashdot. You are not _supposed_ to say anything positive about UnitedLinux.
    • Efforts like UL are not going to be harmful for any of the open source projects, as long as they encash the requirements of polished GUI, Office products, support etc.
    • Because, after all, developing a new Linux distro really is the same thing as developing some private software from scratch.

      Because, after all, it's not like those private companies would have to start from scratch, while the Linux distro has half the work done for them already.

      Because, after all, the private company would have to release a fully feature complete and bug tested piece of software, while all United Linux has to do is release something that boots.

      Nice analogy there. Apples and oranges, very nice.

      • Re:No kidding! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 )

        This parent is a troll.

        Because, after all, developing a new Linux distro really is the same thing as developing some private software from scratch.

        Read the developer's mailing lists for any given distribution that has one. It's not easy--in fact, its really quite hard. Private software has it tough too, but getting all these new software packages that often break binary compatibility to interpolate properly is exceedingly difficult--often times packages fail silently and it takes time to even detect a symptom, and after that finding the source can take weeks! The private software authors have this problem to some extent, but not like distros.

        Because, after all, it's not like those private companies would have to start from scratch, while the Linux distro has half the work done for them already.

        Actually, I'd venture to say private companies re-use as much code as OSS developers. As for the individual packages, many of the core utilities in Win2k have been around with few or no updates since '95! These issues just aren't as prevalent or detectable without sites like distrowatch [distrowatch.com] which tabulate the various packages and version numbers that make up a distro.

        Because, after all, the private company would have to release a fully feature complete and bug tested piece of software, while all United Linux has to do is release something that boots.

        UnitedLinux is a joint commercial venture by respected Linux distributors. Their product must be good--plenty of venture capital has been invested in them, and the individual members have burnt a lot of funds on UL. Just because they draw mostly from tools developed via a different software development model doesn't mean that they aren't trying to compete in the business world via the same means as "private software companies." In fact, you contrasted a hypothetical "private company" to UL, even though UL is, more or less, a "private company!"

        Nice analogy there. Apples and oranges, very nice.

        Nice rebuttal there. Unfortunately, UL is a private company, developing distros is as difficult as private ventures, and you sir are a troll.

  • IMHO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Znonymous Coward ( 615009 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:17AM (#4564376) Journal
    I have beta tested SCOs version of UnitedLinux. UnitedLinux is basically Caldera mixed with SuSE. It's not hat great unless you really like SuSE stuff (YASTA, etc).

    • Re:IMHO (Score:5, Informative)

      by haggar ( 72771 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:23AM (#4564440) Homepage Journal
      Me too (betatested, that is). I was dismayed they didn't integrate COAS into it. I liked COAS.

      On the other hand, I have to admit they packed a LOT of server and network management-related utilities in it.

      All in all, it felt rather solid and professional. yast was a bit buggy and some features were missing, apparently. I am totally curious how the configuration is in the final product.

      • Re:IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Znonymous Coward ( 615009 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:26AM (#4564463) Journal
        The real question is, given the 1.0 release is less buggy, would you be willing to pay for it?
        • It's a good question, but not particularly insightful: I ask this question myself about almost any software product, at any new release. Do I want ot buy the new MakingWaves? Do I want to buy the new Finale?

          Honestly, if 1.0 will be considerably cleaner than the beta I tried, I think I'll buy it. The reason is, I already found the beta very useful, because it contained various tools to assess the security of my network and to manage the network traffic. And the UnitedLinux bodx itself was "hardened". I couldn't find a single known vulnerability of this server. A great proposition for companies paranoid about security (ideally, all the companies).

          In fact, I could start selling the service of installing secure linux servers. The UnitedLinux distro would help me a lot in this regard. Hmmm... the more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

    • Re:IMHO (Score:2, Informative)

      by NeonSpirit ( 530024 )
      As SCO/Caldera and SuSE are the two big development companies in the consortium such a mix is what I would expect. Presonaly I found it to be mainly SuSE. From some of the presentations I have been to, the two other members of the consrtium Turbolinux and Conectiva have mainly contributed language support and will be actively marketing thier distribution in thier individual regions as they have branding.

    • Re:IMHO (Score:2, Funny)

      by Palshife ( 60519 )

      hat great

      Coincidence or slip? You decide :)

    • UnitedLinux is basically Caldera mixed with SuSE

      At last, my dream distribution!

  • Done Beta testing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainAx ( 606247 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:20AM (#4564412)
    Who beta tested this? I never once heard of anyone running this and they are ready to launch a production version of it? Maybe I should take my blinders off if I somehow missed this but I never heard of any beta versions.

  • Shame they don't know what "Open Source" means (Score:5, Informative)

    by Phil Hands ( 2365 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#4564419) Homepage
    UnitedLinux has completed beta testing of the first release of its open source Linux operating system
    (emphasis mine)

    Given that United Linux uses YaST as it's installer, the operating system is dependant up on that non-free [www.suse.de] (and hence non Open Source) program, which renders the whole thing non-free.

    United Linux, like SuSE, is not Free Softwae, so it is not Open Source.

    • Re:Shame they don't know what "Open Source" means (Score:4, Informative)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:31AM (#4564509) Homepage
      From section 3 of the YaST license...

      It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG or SuSE Linux. Distribution of the YaST programme, its sources, whether amended or unamended in full or in part thereof, and the works derived thereof for a charge require the prior written consent of SuSE Linux AG.
    • UnitedLinux have commited that the base distribution CD will be freely downloadable for "Non commercial use" in thier FAQ.

      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.

      UnitedLinux is intended for commercal use, rumours have it that the original name was going to be United Business Linux, until 9-11 made the UBL TLA unviable.

      Therefor it will be free but not,as you say, open source.

      • Umnh... What they said indicated that it would be gratis, not libre. But it's the libre that's the more important.
        • Not to me.

          I've been wrestling with Linux the entire week so far--and what it gains in "libre" it loses in simplicity.

          Windows XP hasn't even hiccuped throughout the entire process--and the only problem that came up (Lycoris stealing the MBR) was fixed so easily I laughed when I discovered it.

          [Open Disk Manager, right-click windows partiion, select "make active" or equivalent.]

          For OSS, the only part that matters to me is gratis. I'm libre enough by the law the extant software licenses, thank you very much.
    • It's a shame that -YOU- don't know what "Open Source" means.

      Especially since that "Open Source" means by far not free software, however don't be aggrieved mismatching FreeSoftware and Open Source is a common failure.

      In example windows CE is Open Source, since you can get the source for it. But is it free software? Definitly not!

      However OpenSource is a true key attribute of free software, but not all.
      • Windows CE is 'closed source'. You can get the source, but it's not open.

        Linux is 'open source'. You can get the source code and redistribute it freely, with changes.

        Windows XP is 'no source at all, open, closed or otherwise'.

        At least that is how I think about it. But it's best to avoid the politically motivated term 'open source' altogether and just say free software. Then it is clear what you mean, subject to some initial confusion about 'free as in price' from those unfamiliar with the idea.
        • But it's best to avoid the politically motivated term 'open source' altogether and just say free software.

          "Free software" is a much more "political" term than "open source". "Open source" is a technical term; "free software" brings in ideology and other crap.

          • Maybe, but 'free software' is kinda grandfathered in, I feel. RMS was using the phrase back in 1985 and it became established as the normal English phrase for what it means. Besides, all different ideologies refer to being 'free' and to freedom, so I don't think the word is that objectionable.

            'Open Source' however was coined much later and for purely marketing reasons. There was no need for the term and it was just invented by ESR and pals to sound more appealing to PHBs.

            If history had been the other way round - Open Source being the established term, and 'free software' being suddenly invented by RMS for weird political reasons - then I would agree with you.
      • When you capitalize Open Source it has a slightly different meaning than "If I jump through hoops, I can look at the source." There is a more extensive openness implied, which among other things implies that you can change it and use the changes. It is less extensively open than Free Software (notice the capitals). And please understand that Free Software is not necessarily gratis, but rather libre.

        For a more extensive list of the normal usage of the capitalized terms you could check the Open Source Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, respectively. Most people don't use the terms with the nice distinction that they have defined, but that is basically sloppiness. (And, yes, I'm guilty too.)

        P.S.: These are the groups that originally defined the capitalized terms, and they have not greatly shifted their definitions since the original time. So they have the right to claim primacy.
    • United Linux, like SuSE, is not Free Softwae, so it is not Open Source.

      You've got it backwards.

      Open Source is not a subset of Free Software; Free Software is a subset of Open Source.

      Free Software: Software that follows GNU's "software freedoms," including source code and redistribution rights, and sticky copyleft.

      Open Source: Software that gives you the source code for the system. Mac OS's Darwin kernel is "Open Source", even though Aqua (and thus the OS as a whole) and most Mac apps aren't.

      Unless YaST doesn't include code, it's OSS. If YaST doesn't include code, but doesn't do anything more than setup the software, it (the OS) might still be OSS.

      • Wrong.

        Open Source is defined by the Open Source Definition [opensource.org], which is a very slight modification to the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org], so they were always intended to be equivalent terms.

        Unfortunately the Open Source Initiative, in their wisdom accepted that Apple License that both Debian and the Free Software Foundation rejected, but that is a tiny thing.

        Getting the source is nowhere near sufficient to qualify for "Open Source" status.

        You are also wrong about Free Software only being applicable to copyleft software. The list of licenses [fsf.org] that the FSF accepts is extensive, and certainly not limited to copyleft licenses.

        OK, so if you're being pedantic, you can say that I got it wrong, because the Apple difference does mean that Open Source is a superset of Free Software, but that was an intentional move on my part, because it was bound to catch the attention of people like you who have totally failed to understand that the two terms refer to the same thing (pretty much).
        • That is one definition of open source, my personal definition might include, "is the source available for me to see and modify for my personal use?". In this way Povray is open source but does not fit the open source initiatives definition.
    • Who (besides RMS) ever said that costless, non-open software was bad? I was a Linux/Solaris Netscape user for years and got along pretty well. I use Opera now and love it. Sure, having source is definitely a good thing but it's certainly not a hard and fast requirement most rational people would put on use of software.

      If what you need to use is closed-source, then use it. If you can find an open/free alternative that works just as well, then use it. If you find something which costs nothing but doesn't offer source, then use that if you need to. Saying "use the right tool for the job" doesn't necessarily have to involve any discussions about openness or freedom if you have an open mind to begin with.

      I've never understood why some people consider having a choice to be a bad thing. I suppose I've always valued liberty over equality, I guess.

      -B

      • Who (besides RMS) ever said that costless, non-open software was bad?

        If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I certainly didn't in the post you're replying to. All I was doing was pointing out that UL is not Open Source, and that the story has that wrong.

        I suppose I've always valued liberty over equality,

        Well, I tend to favour Free Software, because I'm rather protective of my liberty, and can do without being tied into a supplier in a way that stops me doing what I want to the software on my computers --- You want the freedom to discard you freedom, I want to make sure that people are aware that they are discarding their freedom when they do so. I think we're on the same side here.
      • Sure, having source is definitely a good thing but it's certainly not a hard and fast requirement most rational people would put on use of software.

        I think you are missing the point here - the idea is that being free is good for the software istself, not necessarily for people using it (well, apart from using better quality software).

        Costless propriatary software just saves you 50 bucks, I don't see that as a great advantage.

        I suppose I've always valued liberty over equality, I guess. What does this have to do with anything?

      • Well, I, for one, consider it sufficiently bad that I won't buy SuSE. And although they have a very good technical reputation, I still won't recommend them.

        It's not terrible, but it's a whole lot worse than many alternatives, and I don't really understand why anyone would choose them. But if you want to, it's up to you. If you aren't distributing any code, it's not an immediate problem. And as long as there are a multitude of distributions, they aren't a real threat.
    • Time to dig in and stand against companies who are treating the spirit of Linux like an afterthought.

      There is plently of BSD code out their so I wish these companies would just stick to that instead of using mostly GPL code and then throwing in their "special sauce" thus polluting the distro.

    • That statement is correct, Linux is open source. Of course Linux is the kernel, not the sum of all the stuff packaged with it.

      I could write my own Closed app for linux, and distribute it with a linux distro, and Linux would still be open source.

      The operating system is not dependant on YAST, the intallation of the Kernel does.

  • *yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#4564422)
    I'll stick with RedHat myself. And let me tell you, corporations will do the same. Why? RedHat's proven. UnitedLinux (I thought it was just supposed to be a body of standards? Eh?) isn't. They'd best hope they have the venture capital to stick it out.

    That said, what ever happened to Random Love or whatnot?
    • I'll stick with NT myself. And let me tell you, corporations will do the same. Why? NT's proven. Linux isn't.

  • 2nd wife = Beta tester (Score:5, Funny)

    by Illuminati Member ( 541846 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:24AM (#4564449)
    My second wife was a beta tester for the latest version (release candidate).

    She told me all about it to stuff it in my face. One of the differences for us that caused the divorce was that I was a big Windows user (although I did run Linux on one of my machines, which she took through the divorce), and she was a big Linux and BSD user. I can honestly say that I am strictly a windows user because she took all the boxes with Linux on them.

    Anyway, she said it has some features that will 'blow windows AND linux users away.' I'd say more, but don't know if I'm allowed to tell the info legally (trust me, she's already taken me to the cleaners, once).
  • Reminds me of the uproar about licensing. Without undermining the need of cash for OSS projects, can we suggest them to provide differnt packages? Do not wish to start a flame war, but does anybody think that Apache license provides leverage here if somebody wishes to go commercial? View please.

  • With Caldera and SuSE each having a stake in UnitedLinux, which one actually does the "steering" (for lack of a better expression)? It seems that even when companies cooperate, someone ultimately emerges at the leader.

    I get this feeling that, like a lot of other cooperative efforts, there will be a split between the involved parties down the line (different business models, philosophies, goals, etc) and there will be separate paths taken by the different companies, and the end result will be that no one has really gained too much in the way of progress. Am I alone in this line of thinking?

  • Benefits? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GreatDave ( 620927 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:34AM (#4564528)
    The main benefit of UL is that it will present a united spec to compete against Red Hat. From the ISV and hardware vendor perspective, this is good, because there will be only two Linux distro specs being used in the business world where they will hawk their goods. Debian ought to count as a third but it doesn't have the marketshare or mindshare (except among diehard admins, of course).

    Only good can come of this, though I really don't see UL being able to overcome Red Hat.
    • If Red Hat are removing the Republic of China's flag from their distribution to appease the PRC, does this mean that United Linux will ship with the Taiwanese flag but no communist flag?
    • except among diehard admins, of course

      Pesky admins! Business would so much easier without them!

  • So four companies merged to create United linux. I'm still confused as there's still Lycoris, Lindows, Mandrake, Redhat, etc.

    In my PERSONAL experience in futzing with Lycoris, I went out and BOUGHT Redhat.

    Redhat seems to suffer from Microsoftitis, that is, if it's a Un*x app, it's running on Redhat first.
  • Why is that everytime we read about Linux - people mention how Linux is going to get users to convert from Solaris, HP-UX etc. and here the thing is that this distro is designed to get users from RedHat.

    Shouldn't it be that the goal is to get users to switch from Windows? Who cares if they migrate to RedHat or Solaris or SuSE or United Linux? As long as its away from Windows. This is great that there's yet another distro (I guess), but I think they ought to target Windows users rather than existing Linux/Unix users.

    A house divided...
    • I agree. My reaction to this was, "Just what the Linux world needs. . . another distro to dillute the Linux community." Unless it offers something completely revolutionary, it seems to me it will do nothing but drawing users away from existing Linux distros.

      One of the biggest problems facing users considering a change from Microsoft to Linux is "which distro should I pick? There are just too many!" In my extremely humble opinion, Linux needs fewer distros, not more.

  • easy one (Score:3, Funny)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:49AM (#4564660) Journal
    So, will next year be : United GNU/Linux Year ? :-)
  • Cool! Caldera v.4! or is it RansomLovix v.1? "In keeping with the Ransom Love tradition, your ISP will automatically bill you for each attempted and completed ISO download." >

  • I'm not sure I'm happy about this.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SwedishChef ( 69313 ) <craig@networkessentials . n et> on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:52AM (#4564689) Homepage Journal
    Our company has been using (and buying) SuSE distributions for years now and we were pretty happy with it until they got to 8.0 when so many things were broken/changed that we couldn't use it any longer as a server OS. The big changes were the loss of the ability to edit the configuration files; especially in regards to selecting which services start during boot. It proved almost impossible, for instance, to keep portmap from starting without mucking about in the bowels of the boot sequence. It seemed to us that 8.0 was aimed squarely at the desktop market and its functionality as a server was reduced.

    Since most of our installs are servers, we stopped buying the 5 or 6 copies of the distribution we normally buy and instead went back to using the single copy of 7.3 we had laying around the lab.

    What I'm afraid of with United Linux is that SuSE will have moved their own distribution (which I liked to call "The Lego Set of Operating Systems") from an all-purpose distro (at a great price: $79) to a desktop-only solution. The UL distro will be moved in (at a significantly higher price point) to fill the server niche. Thus we will have to buy two distributions from SuSE (a la RedHat) whereas before one did everything. (And yes, I know they had a $39.95 "personal" edition but that always looked to me to be the loss-leader for ads that brought people into the store to turn them for the higher value product.)

    This makes me nervous. Our comapany's future depends on the solidity of the distribution we choose. Our competitiveness rests on our ability to buy the OS at prices that put our MS rivals out of the bidding. I am not comfortable with distributions that tinker with what I thought was a winning recipe.

    Our move to SuSE was away from RH during the glibc debacle (version 4 or 5 of RH, I forget now). Our move away from SuSE (to Debian, perhaps) might be imminent. It will all depend on how they price this new United Linux offering and what it offers our customers.

    • Migrate (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Synn ( 6288 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @12:04PM (#4564781)
      Seriously, migrate to Debian. It's rock solid stable, you can choose exactly how it runs and it won't cost you a dime.

      You could download it over the net and start playing with it on a beta machine today if you wanted.
    • Every distribution that I'm aware of has had it's bad periods. FWIW (I dont' really run a server) Red Hat 7.3 was quite stable.

      OTOH, Debian has both it's good and bad points. The stable branch hasn't always been quite as stable as it should be, so be a bit careful if apt-get tells you it's having trouble with an upgrade. But it's generally quite nice. Particularly if you can install it once, and copy it to several machines. (The original set up does take a bit of work ... more than I'm usually willing to put in.)
      As a third option, consider LibraNet. It's basically a fancy installer on the front of a Debian system. In fact, once you have it installed, you can just shift apt-get to point to debian-testing (sorry, I don't think stable will work here) and upgrade from that. And at the next change you can switch to debian-stable, and it will be just as if you had originally installed debian (at least if you tune the screen).

      But do be a bit careful if apt-get warns you that there may be a problem. (Sometimes it's just that you need to replace one package with another that has a different name, but if you don't figure it out before proceeding, you can cause yourself a reasonable amount of trouble.)

    • The big changes were the loss of the ability to edit the configuration files; especially in regards to selecting which services start during boot. It proved almost impossible, for instance, to keep portmap from starting without mucking about in the bowels of the boot sequence. It seemed to us that 8.0 was aimed squarely at the desktop market and its functionality as a server was reduced.

      Then you should be actually happy about UnitedLinux: it's a hardened Linux with only SSH running after installation, and applications and kenrel tuned for server work. By all means, try the beta, it's now the most secure box in my network, I coulnd't find a single vulnerability.

    • Use the power that opensource provides and create your own distro and maintain that.

      If you are mainly interested in server installs, then you wont have much maintenance to do once its stable and running.. You dont want bleeding edge stuff in the first place.

      Or just switch to FreeBSD and forget the distro wars once and for all ( its part of what drove me away ).

  • UL vs RedHat (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Diabolical ( 2110 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @11:57AM (#4564726) Homepage
    Why do people try to put UL and RH against each other? UL is een open initiative in which Linux distro's can participate. This includes RH. So i don't understand the fuss.. what i do know is that people are still thinking that RH is big in the entire world. IT'S NOT!!!. Here in Europe SuSE is one of the biggest distro's and RedHat is, although known to most, over here what SuSE is to u in the US.

    Furthermore, the fact that this UL distro looks like a mix of SuSE and SCO's linux distro is because they put the most effort in this for the moment.

    It remains to be seen if this initiative attracts ISV though. And that is not because of lack of support but more an economical reason. Since it is not easy in this economical climate most ISV would rather stay on the beaten path then try to find new roads..

  • Confusion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cheese Cracker ( 615402 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @12:39PM (#4565044)
    It will be harder to get Windows people to migrate to Linux if the trend of adding more flavors
    continues. To me it's like they're making coffee from the same set of coffee beans, and then add
    their own special flavor to it, like milk, sugar etc. All these different versions makes a beginner
    rather confused. I bet a lot of people ask themselves "Which Linux shall I choose???"... Well,
    at least I do. :) I've only tried out Red Hat, but I won't migrate away from Windows until I've
    figured out why there's so many different flavors of Linux. I don't think I'm alone in this quest for
    knowledge    . Anyway, I'm not in a rush... I'll waste the time to STFW. :)
    • To me it's like they're making coffee from the same set of coffee beans, and then add their own special flavor to it, like milk, sugar etc.

      I am fairly sure there is more than one company making coffee out of the same coffee beans. What are you suggesting? That there be one GNU/Linux - the one you like? While we are at it, let's make one car, one type of house and get rid of that ridiculous amount of choice people have in buying clothes - poor consumers shouldn't have to decide what they want, after all.

      • That there be one GNU/Linux - the one you like?

        You're missing the whole point with my post. I'm just trying to point out that having so many
        flavors might confuse some people. (like me) If Linux is going to be popular outside of the
        geek community, then it would be better if there were fewer choices with a clear distinction
        between them.
    • Just dive in dude... Redhat isn't bad to start with because you can understand what's wrong with it when you actually learn stuff later. OTOH, Slackware is the best I've tried, but if I had more bandwidth, I'd try A source based distro. (Gentoo... sourceror..)
      • Redhat isn't bad to start with because you can understand what's wrong with it when you actually learn stuff later.

        This is the type of info newbies to Linux should hear on day one. :) As you wrote... you can always
        move over to the other flavors later on, but it would be cool if they knew where to start. Thanks!
    • Well, when I decided that I too wanted a l33t desktop I did some research. It only took a few weeks to get up to speed on what was going on, but if you don't want to do that then fair enough, so here's a rundown.

      Why are there so many distros? Because Linux is a free market, and people have wildly varying tastes in operating systems it turns out. The domination of Windows kind of disguised that fact for a while, but like any other market you care to name, there is competition for customers, and competition is good. It keeps the distros (at least the commercial ones) on their toes.

      So which is right for you? When I first looked around, there were basically two types of distro, one of the Big 3 (redhat, suse, mandrake) and then all the rest (debian/slackware/etc).

      I looked at RedHat, went eurgh GNOME1.4 and looked at SuSE, which was shipping KDE2.2 - so I went for SuSE. I did look at Mandrake, but SuSE had a much stronger european presence plus their website sold me much better than the Mandrake site did.

      The big 3 are all very strong distros, you should definately start with them. I went for SuSE back then, but today I spent the day installing Linux on my work machine (corporate desktop invasion is starting already, i'm by no means the first in our dept :) and it was RedHat 8, because I'm now a GNOME user, and Psyche does kick ass. SuSE is still very good however, as is Mandrake.

      Since then there are of course a couple more types of distros on the scene: source based (ie gentoo) and the "XP Clones", like Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows. The last type might be of interest if you're looking for the gentlest learning curve possible, but be warned, they aren't really targetted at Slashdot readers as such. You'll find that they feel less like Linux. If you like Windows but dislike Microsoft they might be worth looking at though....

    • if the trend of adding more [Linux] flavors continues

      Um, I thought UnitedLinux was a specification for the member distros to adhere to, not a new distro itself. Suse, VA and the others are going to release distros that conform to the UnitedLinux spec but are still individualized.

      That's the point of it being UnitedLinux: to reduce the worry of choosing.
  • Too much SuSe for the Caldera crowd, and too much Per Seat Lisc^H^H^H^H^HCaldera stuff for the SuSe crowd.

  • Fragmentation & Distribution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FunkyLinux ( 311498 ) on Wednesday October 30, 2002 @12:48PM (#4565112) Homepage
    IMHO, it's all about keeping Linux unfragmented and and having a good distribution channel.These are keys to the business success of Linux. UL brings together a few pretty good Linux companies and a seasoned i386 UNIX Giant that owns the original Bell Labs code and has over 16,000 resellers.Not to mention the group has a very impressive global reach.
    At heart I like to hack up my own box, I run Lunar and LFS. But with production boxen UL might be just the ticket.

    Sean

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close