Red Hat Returns To the Linux Desktop 192
CWmike writes "Red Hat used to be in the desktop business along with all the other Linux distributors. Then, they left. Now, however, Red Hat is switching from Xen to KVM for virtualization. As part of that switchover, Red Hat will be using not only KVM, but the SolidICE/SPICE desktop virtualization and management software suite to introduce a new server-based desktop virtualization system. Does this mean that Red Hat will be getting back into the Linux desktop business? That's the question I posed to Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens, in a phone call after the Red Hat/KVM press conference, and he told me that, 'Yes. Red Hat will indeed be pushing the Linux desktop again.'"
With RedHat. (Score:3, Funny)
It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...
Year of the Ox?
China agrees.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If Microsoft succeeds in putting out Windows 7 this year, 2009 may become the Year of Windows on the... Oh wait, nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft succeeds in putting out Windows 7 this year, 2009 may become the Year of Windows on the...
... netbooks?
Re: (Score:1)
It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...
The year of the lame repetitive Slashdot meme?
Ok mods, you can give him a +1 Funny and me a -1 Flamebait now. "We like our lame repetitive memes, mmkay? Thankyouverymuch."
Re:With RedHat. (Score:5, Informative)
If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.
It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I moderate, I've never felt like someone's karma and whether it is in good standing was my responsibility. If they made a really great post that truly expressed something worthy, doing so should have been its o
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're pretty much on the same page, but with minor differences.
Allowing a Funny mod to boost an individual posts rating, while not adding Karma to the user allows malicious mods to apply a large negative modifier to a poster by someone modding a post Funny followed by a troll's -1 mod. With a few sock puppets or a little troll-coordination you could put some serious hurt on someone's Slashdot Karma. It's not happened to me, but I've seen evidence of it being done (a well-written post at -1 Funny).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is this a joke post? I seriously can't tell.
- I just tried using GNOME at 640x480, the screen resolution dialog box fits perfectly fine even with tons of space on every side of the window. Either Ubuntu seriously fucked things up (I use Debian), or you are spreading shit.
- Netscape software? What are you doing using that ancient piece of crap? the Network-Manager in GNOME supports dialup just fine.
- Applications -> System Tools -> System Monitor. Has tabs for filesystems and general hardware spec
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Is this a joke post? I seriously can't tell.
Yes of course. I was lying.
(rolls eyes)
I've been using home computers since 1984... probably since before you were born... and I'm fairly certain I would not come on here and just randomly make up problems. Ubuntu's desktop properties window is "higher" than 480 lines such that I can't access the okay button, and therefore cannot switch it back to 1280x1024. I'm sorry that my sharing of this difficulty offends you; I recommend you never work in tech su
Re: (Score:2)
Right click the window bar and select "Move" Alt + clicking into windows & holding left mouse button lets you do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Dell with 1280x800 and can't move the window upside the screen border with your method (but indeed does downside.) I don't remember what application was, but I ended avoiding it because I never could read the corresponding buttons in the inferior zone.
I'm not sure if this is because compiz or any other addition to X, but it is a real annoyance. Of course, those annoyances are microscopic compared with the windows' ones, like the malware and the corresponding antivirus extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, after posting I found that choosing Move from the window menu indeed does not let you muve it upward beyond the panel. However, the shortcut (that at least on my machine is mentioned in the menu) does let you do it, and so does the Alt click into the window.
It's not because of compiz, I run Ubuntu (Jaunty) w/o visual effects and the behavior is as described (and the OK button is indeed out of the screen in the first place).
Re: (Score:2)
mmmmmm, the alt+mouse let's me move the window but not upside off the screen. I don't have (or didn't understand) about the shortcut in the menu.
Re: (Score:2)
Alt+mouse works for me. Maybe that's compiz after all. The shortcut is Alt+F7, I see it in the menu. It's possible that I changed a setting somewhere a long time ago to display shortcuts in menus. Anyway, when you select a window and press it you should be able to move the mouse with the window (unless compiz is being uncooperative again).
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks... The alt+f7 indeed works, but not far upside... I'll try to deactivate Compiz on other machine and try again later.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how far down you grab the window, that's as far as it will go. You can repeat though
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I'm not sure exactly what you used to adjust the resolution but this should be an easy solution that doesn't depend on exactly what method you used. If you look in your /et
Re: (Score:2)
>>>"Just ain't there yet" seems to have an underlying assumption that usability for the non-technically-inclined is the one and only criteria of advancement.
No of course not. Lots of systems are designed for technicians/engineers only, but the OP that I replied to (and many other posters) said "YEAR OF THE LNUX DESKTOP" which implies a desktop usable by everybody, same as Windows or Mac OS, and directly replacing those. That was the assumption.
>>>Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "
Re: (Score:2)
The tongue-in-cheek post [slashdot.org] that currently sits at +5 Funny? Your post seemed to use that joke to begin a serious discussion of usability so it was really your motivation for doing that to which I was responding. That is,
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your help.
df -h showed several partitions of 512 megabyte each, so if I add them to the 36G partition, it comes just shy of 40 gigabytes. I'll try dmesg after I reboot my laptop (it's currently downloading Galactica).
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I am actually mostly a Windows user these days, and I do find some valid reasons to prefer it to modern Linux desktop distros... but even so... judging from your bullet list of problems, you're either 1) too dumb to use any computer (Windows included), or 2) simply lying/trolling.
Other posters have already gone through your list point-by-point, and you did not deign those responses with any meaningful reply, so I have to assume #2...
Re: (Score:2)
I followed your instructions. A: Konsole opened-up a CLI window to type commands which I do not know. Therefore I'm still stuck at 640x480. B: I already tried direct-dialing the modem, connected to my ISP, and it just came-up with garbage. C: I don't see any program called "gparted" therefore I can't run it, and I still don't know the size of my HDD, speed of my CPU, or how much memory I have. D: "The program htop is not installed." Well so much for that.
Is th
Re: (Score:2)
Or just keep using Windows or Mac OS, which don't hide important functions in obscure programs with nondescriptive names.
Or use windows and regedit and reboot to perform anything but the most trivial tasks. And reboot again for regular patches. And reboot again when random bits of software just stop working. And still have to run virus scanning software to check every IO operation against a database of known exploits.
Windows has never been ready for desktop or server use.
Re: (Score:2)
"Or use windows and regedit and reboot to perform anything but the most trivial tasks."
So I guess 99% of Windows users perform only trivial tasks, since they've never run regedit.
Re: (Score:2)
Your issues have a lot in common with average issues my father has with Windows. He does what the typical Joe American probably does; he calls a knowledgeable person (me) who can help him. He's an MD and a smart guy, but has no clue about computers.
If you're not interested in looking up reference guides such as this one [tldp.org], you can always contact a friend (or the local Linux user group) to get he
Re: (Score:2)
"The only idiot proof OS is Mac."
So are you saying that the original Mac OS is the only idiot proof one and OSX is not? Or are you saying that OSX is the only idiot proof OS and the original MAC OS is not?
Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond my comprehension; anyone have an explanation?
CC.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't for server virtual machines. its for pushing apps and environments out to clients seamlessly. Microsoft has something similar, APP-V, and VMWare is working on it too. Why have office installed on every machine? Why not just push or stream an image out to the machine, and then you only have one spot to update, one spot to upgrade, etc. Think LTSP but on steroids... Companies are once again realizing that the biggest cost in computers is keeping the things secure and running...
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:4, Funny)
They didn't put in parentheses for order-of-operations:
LinuxNew = 325x(costLinuxOld - performanceLinuxOld)
and
WindowsNew = 325x(costWindowsOld - performanceWindowsOld)
There.
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the Xen thing, maybe they're trying to say you can virtualize multiple servers onto 1 and save money that way.
I think it's BS unless you have almost zero load, but hey! That's marketing for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Tho you can bet that said pointy hairs will try to make use of VM's in cases where it makes no sense first...
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:5, Insightful)
No utopia, just an improvement.
A desktop workstation or fast laptop is optimal for a developer or fairly heavy user, but in a business context requires
However, many users don't actually need any more than a cheap diskless netbook or a glorified X-terminal, and can do all their computing on a back-end timesharing server.
As in "The Unix Timesharing System" that we grew up with, which was always orders of magnitude more cost-effective than individual shared-nothing workstations.
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you started doing anything CPU intensive and went to lunch.
Then it was very efficient at making everyone but you nonproductive.
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, now! When we'd muck about on the old VAX in college, that was definitely not a bug, that was a *feature*!
Cheers,
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:4, Interesting)
Resource management was pretty horrid in those days: users had to do it themselves with "nice". And they usually weren't (;-))
These days, Linux is a hotbed of resource management research and one of it's biggest supporters, IBM, has done some impressive work on zOS.
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But is the blade so significantly faster than a desktop machine that the extra bandwidth required by virtualization and network latency is not a problem?
About time (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
I never understood why the[y] left in the first place.
Things have improved somewhat since then: Other projects like Ubuntu and FreeDesktop.org have paved the way for desktop Linux; a lot of codecs have been re-implemented as open source and patents are expiring on some codecs; Microsoft doesn't quite have the teeth they used to have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you care to expand on your argument, this time laying out your reasons for making it in clear, concise manner with appropriate references? Because I can.
OTOH, you have given us no reason to accept your argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the answer seems obvious, you aren't thinking critically. A critical thinker knows good arguments for both sides.
Your signature line seems oddly appropriate here. ;)
Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)
Wish you woulda told me that before I installed the then-new Redhat 3.0.3 back in '96. I stuck with them til I went Ubuntu with Hoary in mid-'05. Been daily using Linux as a desktop since '96, nice to know I've been wasting my time on an impossible goal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an impossible goal for you. It costs you nothing to install Linux on the desktop. It's an impossible goal for them, being a company which needs to make money.
Linux on the desktop will not make financial sense for a distribution until the infrastructure is there to support it. By infrastructure, I mean a Linux-friendly network environment. That means Linux servers, first and foremost, with useful client management tools. Then, and only then, will companies consider moving to Linux on their workstati
Re: (Score:2)
That's about as stupid as saying Windows can never be a server because it was and is designed to be an OS for desktops.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.
No...it's because every company knows servers and the enterprise market is where they can make money (with customizations and support contracts). The desktop just isn't very profitable. In the past, Red Hat worked on the desktop as part of their enterprise package (companies that deployed to workstations needed a usable desktop), and because they
Based on colour... (Score:5, Interesting)
Since most of my hats are brown (along with a couple black ones), I guess I'll have to run Ubuntu.
It's not that I really mind running beta software, it's this whole "you people are testing what we expect to sell as 'enterprise' for a premium later on, we're waiting for your bug reports" thing that I don't really like with the current RH. Although truthfully I haven't run RH since RH 3 or 4.
Not that distributions really matter all that much in the end, after you've been through the rounds and you're done with dicking around with your machine and you finally settle with just using it, you realise that they all ship pretty much the same stuff. And that the details really don't matter all that much. So unless you're really excited with a given logo, you can just pick one at random. They're all the same.
If you're in a corporate setting pick the one that's supported by the package you need, or if you don't require anything external, the one you already know, you'll save a week of work. Doesn't matter. Basically they all mostly work (and/or are broken in the same kinds of places). Same as most operating systems really.
And honestly I really doubt one couldn't have used RH on the desktop those past years. No Gnome or KDE repositories (or XFCE, or any other desktop ? did it even have X11 ? Or was it too hard for "grandma" (who is surely glad that RH finally pandered to her needs) ?
Bah.
Re:Based on colour... (Score:5, Insightful)
How did the parent comment get "+4 interesting" when it so full of gross errors?
Ubuntu depends on the kernel and GNOME developers funded by Red Hat. Red Hat contributes everything back into the upstream projects, which Ubuntu has been noticeably bad [lwn.net] about doing.
RHEL has both GNOME and KDE (and obviously X11).
Rich.
Re: (Score:2)
But Unbuntu is supported by a rich fat cat, who's been propping up the community until it becomes self-sustaining. To their credit, they now claim they are.
That means Unbuntu is the most advertised Linux. You can't get around the marketing. It starts with world peace and ends with children in Africa not falling victim to evil Microsoft.
In other words, it's hard to talk to an Unbuntuite without hearing the marketing talk back to you. I've heard that it's the first Linux "for the people", and that's let m
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to download RHEL for free, get CentOS. Identical to RHEL, but free. And, from what I hear, RedHat doesn't mind CentOS' existence.
They don't mind it because the license says they can't help it.
The issue with Ubuntu is that it's buggy as hell. RedHat at least admits that Fedora Core is an open beta; Ubuntu 8.10 is an open beta but Ubuntu didn't inform me of this fact.
That's true enough (somewhat), except that RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).
Nowadays they are a bit more open about the purpose of Fedora. Although "Will you be a free beta-tester for our commercial product" still doesn't feature ver
Re: (Score:2)
"They don't mind it because the license says they can't help it."
But they could do it hell more difficult and still well within GPL's "spirit".
For instance, they could allow access to sources only to their paying customers just like they do for binary updates.
And/or they could allow access to the unpackaged sources instead of those nifty srpm packages.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, the trademark lawsuit wasn't actually a nice thing."
No, it wasn't, but looking at the whole context I'll ballance on the side of Red Hat: that they did it in order to protect their trade mark against other, more aggressive, possible attacks (they -said, didn't want for "red hat" to seem some kind of "generic term" others could abuse). In the other hand AFAIK it wasn't a lawsuit but a direct agreement between Red Hat and (CentOS/White Tiger). Thinking about it, probably they may KO Centos if they in
Re: (Score:2)
RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).
OK, I think I know what you're issue is.
Yeah, all those damn illiterate RH users.
Desktop Redhat? (Score:2)
I don't know. I mean it was a great desktop years back, probably the best (discounting Debian), I used it for the whole of my time at university, but things have moved on.
I use it for servers nowadays, servers that I set up and don't change, aside from updates, but as a deasktop system it would need to compete with Ubuntu for ease of use and administration. Ubuntu's a long way ahead in those respects.
Still, I'm mildly interested to see what they might offer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The meaning of the article is unclear (Score:5, Informative)
The article seems to conflate "desktop" and "desktop virtualization."
RH has been on the desktop since the beginning. They offered Red Hat Linux 1.0 in 1995, all the way up through RHL 9 in 2003. They followed that with 10 bleeding-edge releases of Fedora and five main releases of RH Enterprise Linux. All 100% open, including their own work on utilities, Gnome/KDE, and kernel development. They have done more for linux on the desktop than just about any other company. And now we all reap the benefit, even if we use another distribution like Ubuntu.
So it is nonsense to say RH "returns" to the desktop. They never left.
Now, the article goes on to talk a lot about desktop *virtualization.* That's a totally different topic. Maybe the article should have been titled RH returns to desktop virtualization.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who used RedHat on the desktop from 6 through 9 and actually had just bought "support" when they "left" just to show my support for them I assure you when they abandoned RH 7-9 it most definitely felt like they "left". Way back they were a company with a loyal customer base who bought their boxed distributions even when we didn't have to just to support them. Then they went "public" and suddenly the people that got them to where they were and helped them get rich when they IPO'ed were dirt, and
Re: (Score:2)
"Users who bought all those RH CD's from the early days and wanted to stick with a RH distribution simply moved on to Fedora Core 1. And if you were paying for support as you say, then RHEL would be no different than what you were doing under RHL 9. I don't see what anyone is complaining about."
Because I bought support for Red Hat 8 and it was basically worthless about a week later because Red Hat completely DROPPED Red Hat 7-9 without warning.
Both you and Red Hat exhibit total cluelessness about the fact t
Yeah, but rpm's still stink (Score:2)
I tried a Fedora release not too long ago and found myself in dep-hell before the install was set up to my specs. That was the reason I bailed on RH back when they were on v8.1 If they can't fix that in the space of several years, why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Dep hell? Such as??
The only problem I've had (in at least 5 years) with Fedora is with broken/overlapping dependencies as a result of using non-supported third party repositories in tandem, and I fail to see how the problems introduced by using an unsupported repository is RedHat's, RPM's, or Yum's fault.
With most 3rd party repo's joining up for RPMForge I haven't seen one hint of a dependency issue.
So tell me, why play this broken fiddle over and over again trying to carry a fresh tune? Your arguments are
Re: (Score:2)
Were you installing RPMs manually with RPM?
Re: (Score:2)
Well one is expected to have dep hell if you're installing manually and non using a dep solver like yum. That's like installing a .deb without apt.
Ooppps (Score:2)
We all know that VMware uses linux red hat as the backbone of their visualisation module.
Now we have a real Red hat entry into the virtualisation world by teaming up with Xen.
I myself do not like Xen, being that you absolutely need the new VC chips to use it....
where as VMWare always worked from the beginning.
Cool to know though, red hat is trying to do there part and compete against M$
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
....Ubuntu...??
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Dr. Seuss quote, but for you it seems to be a sort of Rorschach test:
Your sig describes a 3some manwich.
And your answer reveals something quite interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually my comment was offtopic and should have been modded as such. My karma is excellent, so the only time a downmod annoys me is when I have something to say I think funny or important and the comment gets buried. That wasn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Linux is Free as in feeling that somehow your choice in a Computer Operating Systems makes you morally superior.
Or it is free as in beer so When OS X or Windows dies on you you have a quick free OS to install to get your work done.
Or it helps you become an Alpha Geek... If a girl is gonna go for a geek they at least will go for the Alpha geek.
Or the very rare case that there is an app the only runs well in Linux that they need to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Linux is Free as in feeling that somehow your choice in a Computer Operating Systems makes you morally superior.
Or it is free as in beer so When OS X or Windows dies on you you have a quick free OS to install to get your work done.
Or it helps you become an Alpha Geek... If a girl is gonna go for a geek they at least will go for the Alpha geek.
Or the very rare case that there is an app the only runs well in Linux that they need to use.
I really do like and prefer Linux. I enjoy the system. I like its transparency, performance, stability. I like how easy it is to customize, how it does what I want it to do. I like the lack of vendorlock, the use of open standards. I enjoy both the Free Speech aspects and the Free Beer aspects. It generally does not get in my way by making assumptions. I also like the non-commercial nature; that is, companies can use it and market it, but it's not inherently a commercial product and none of those com
Definitions (Score:2)
Geek: Someone who has a strong interest in computers and technology.
Alpha Geek: A Geek who thinks he knows more about computers and technology than all the other geeks and wants everyone else to do it his way. A bully's attitude trapped in a geek body.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then I had to find a new OS for not only my desktop but all the servers we ran.
What, you didn't want to give them a big pile of money per-server, even though the amount of effort they have to put out for you to have them work is the same for one or for ten? Say it ain't so!?
I left Redhat when they went Fedora and have never looked back. I hope I never have to.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of effort they have to put out is the same for one or ten? Really? So, ten different machines aren't more likely than a single machine to have more problems? Sure, there'll undoubtedly be some overlap, but that's what large-scale pricing is for. You shouldn't be paying ten times a single-server cost when you buy ten licenses, whether that's RHEL, SLES, Windows Server, or any other software. But, you will definitely be a bigger risk for a higher call count than someone who only has one server
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I left Redhat when they went Fedora and have never looked back. I hope I never have to.
Oh, so you've stopped using the kernel, ext3, Xorg, usb, glib, glibc, gcc, gnome, KDE, nautilus, gconf, dbus, hal, NetworkManager, coreutils, parted, grub, rpm, yum, anaconda, kudzu, ntsysv, and firefox? If not, you haven't left Red Hat. They write, maintain, or make major contributions to all of these areas, and you're using RH whether you're using their branded distribution or not.
I am grateful for all that RH has done and is continuing to do for linux.
Re: (Score:2)
you're using RH whether you're using their branded distribution or not.
That's a bunch of crap. RedHat is a company, and a distribution. I am affiliated with neither.
I am grateful for all that RH has done and is continuing to do for linux.
Me too. But I wouldn't throw them a red cent given the opportunity to avoid it. And I've had enough agony playing unwitting beta tester for Microsoft, I don't feel a need to do it again for Redhate.
Re:They had their chance (Score:5, Interesting)
I started using red hat with 2.0.2. I currently use fedora 9. As far as I could tell the switch from red hat 9 to fc 1 was a name change only. I have not seen anything out of line with the way the distribution has worked all along. There may have been differences, but as far as I can tell they were marketing and name of the distribution. Not function and the normal evolution of the product. As far as stability I had as many (most likely more) issues with red hat releases as I have with new fedora releases.
How exactly were you burned by a name change of a free product?
Re:They had their chance (Score:4, Interesting)
I have.
RH9.0 was rock solid.
FC1-4 were buggy as hell with major problems. I jumped ship. I was a solid Redhat Guy.
If they are better, I'll never know. I'm not gonna dump any more time into Fedora.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a name change, it was a support issue for a free product which suddenly became non-free. When you have many dozens of servers, you want support. Red Hat wanted us to pay for security updates and such. That wasn't in our budget, and so we had to go through an enormous hassle to migrate away from Red Hat.
Fedora has a very aggressive release cycle which essentially means that any version released now will be unsupported in 18 mo
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a name change, it was a support issue for a free product which suddenly became non-free. When you have many dozens of servers, you want support. Red Hat wanted us to pay for security updates and such.
You were greatly misinformed. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is completely Free software. You can download every single line of source from Red Hat's FTP server. It is recompiled and offered at no cost by third parties such as CentOS. CentOS makes available the security updates, at no cost.
Red Hat's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just want to reinforce Wee's original statement. I am not sure that he was misinformed. When RedHat changed their direction from having a RedHat 9.0 product, to Fedora for the desktop, and RHEL for the server, it left administrators wondering what should they do for a migration path from RedHat 7,8,9 to the new products.
RedHat pushed their RHEL as a paid service. Administrators were left with the impression of "now" they would have to pay $500 a year or so to get updates for the server product. Or to
Re: (Score:2)
RHEL was around a couple of years before the redhat desktop and fedora split. The redhat desktop had a faster release schedule than RHEL since RHEL's inception.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My point is that the Red Hat distribution prior to RHEL was more like Fedora than the current RHEL. RHEL was the new product. RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases. I started with 2.0.2 in 1995 and was on 9 in 2003, the OS changed massively during that time as well.
Take a look at the version history here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux [wikipedia.org]
Anyone that could have dealt with that release
Re: (Score:2)
RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases.
Well, I used RHL up to version 9.0 and tested Fedora before deciding to jump ship to Debian and can't say the same. If you didn't notice anything from Red Hat demoting it to no longer being a "Red Hat" product, all the support staff that didn't work on RHL anymore or the settling in of the new community model you were either blind or lucky. I was pretty sure they'd shape up eventually, but I decided to find an established community distro that had pretty much all this in place already. That is until Ubuntu
Re: (Score:2)
I was in the same boat. I had a few Red hat servers and one Red hat desktop, but then received an email that they were no longer providing up2date support for non-enterprise customers. I then switched to Debian for servers and Ubuntu for my desktop, never had looked back since. Now with my desktop I did try Fedora (its crap), Slackware (good, but package management not to my liking), and then just used Debian for a while until a heard about Ubuntu.
I still got my Red hat 5.2 Deluxe edition box with the discs
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you say Fedora is crap? I have used it since inception up through 9, have not tried 10 yet. I have also installed and tried various versions of Ubuntu, most recently 8.10. The only difference I have seen is that Ubuntu includes non-free codecs that will will play dvd and mp3 out of the box. With Fedora it takes an extra 2 minutes to get that capability. Other than that the color scheme is different. As far as usability I see no other differences. There may be some deep down feature differences but fo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yum and up2date both sucked compared to apt-get.
Do this;
remove all your kernels, then add one back and see how it treats it. Last time I did that yum left me with a non-booting box.
Re: (Score:2)
Non Sequitur. Just because you can't remove all kernels with Yum doesn't make it suck compared to apt-get.
Really, if that is all you can come up with... Each has their pros and cons. Yum is slower. But doesn't require a separate update. But the apt GUI, Synaptic, is very nice. Et cetera.
In the end, it doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if I drive my car into all barriers, it doesn't drive so well after I sanely decide to not drive it into barriers.
Exactly what is the use case for removing all kernels from a system? It's not like the kernel is an optional part of the operating system. It doesn't hurt you to install the new one first and then remove the old one.
In fact, keeping the old one might even save your skin. You never know if the new kernel works properly until after you're running on it. You have no fall back plan if y
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And how exactly is synaptic better than yumex (yum extender) ?
Re: (Score:2)
And if your mother can't deal with the choices, why didn't you just make one for her? Seriously... the whole POINT of Linux is that it gives you choice. If you don't want choice, pay for Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want choice, pay for Apple.
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic, has striking green eyes. I wonder if he did that with Photoshop?
Offtopic? The article was written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic! Did you even RTFA, mods? I didn't think so.
Now you're giving me a headache!
That's because there is no "-1, gay" moderation option (I know, I had the points today and checked).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I've quite a couple of those boxed sets too. I guess that RH8 was my all time favorite. On a Sony Vaio 505, I had/have wireless, PDA synchronization, sound, and even ...drum-roll... suspension/hybernation working.
OK, after an early SlackWare start I "jumped on the bandwagon" with RH 3.0.3. Must have been 1996 or so. And today, my home-built firewall/router is still humming along RH 6.2.
Jumping ahead, this weekend I had to make the choice what to use as the base platform for my desktop PC. When I say "base"