Ask Slashdot: Perceptions of Red Hat Software 370
Yet Another Anonymous Coward asks this
worthwhile question which even I don't
have a ready answer to:
"It seems to me that a growing number of
people within the Linux community are
starting to fear and loathe Red Hat Software.
I read that
article about the Red Hat backlash
and I often see comments here on
Slashdot that make disparaging remarks
against them. I'm curious: has Red Hat
actually done anything that warrants
this type of reaction? Or are people just
getting paranoid about what Red Hat has the
potential to do? No, I'm not a Red Hat
lacky, I'd just like to illuminate a
potentially irrational paranoia within the
community." So what do you all think?
Paranoia (Score:1)
If they do anything bad, people are free to stop paying for Red Hat, since every bit of code Red Hat develops is GPL (with the exception of binary-only X servers, where they are under NDA). Red Hat completely depends on people buying it because they support the company. If at any point we decide Red Hat has actually become evil, we can take Red Hat, and continue developing it independently of the mother company. In reality, Red Hat has enough good people working for them that should Red Hat do anything bad, 90% of the company would quit, and continue working on the good version.
In fact, Red Hat is one of the only two major completely free distributions (the other being Debian). SuSE, Caldera, Slackware and Pacific High Tech distribute a number of proprietary packages with their distributions.
I, for one, am scared as shit of a scenerio where a distribution without Red Hat's commitment to freedom/open source wins out. For instance, SuSE is based on proprietary tools. It could easily get rid of even the free-of-charge distribution it offers today if it gains a monopoly. Then, even though the kernel would be free, the whole OS would no longer be.
- pmitros at mit.edu
Fear ... (Score:1)
A Thought Experiment (Score:1)
By setting the de facto standards, Red Hat is in a dominant market position. If they choose to be agressive about it, they could also potentially ruin distro competition, both competitive and non-competitive. It really doesn't have anything to do with 'Open Source' or proprietary code.
Image its 2 years from now and Red Hat has an 80% market share (remember this is a though experiment, not a prediction). Even the small variations in distributions are enough to break large applications like MS Office for Linux and PhotoMegaGimp. Most competitors now wait until Red Hat releases their latest distro and then scramble to update their own to be compatible.
Large publishers now consult Red Hat to see what will make it into their next distro and what won't. What build, what code base, what protocols, what what what
This isn't to say thats what Red Hat wants, or would do - merely that its one example of how a dominant distro publisher could influence even the 'Open Source' market.
RedHat (Score:1)
And as a sidenote, someone above posted that the only people who complain about Redhat are the "true hackers out there." Let me explain something to you...the "true hackers" out there don't really give a rats ass about any distribution...they install whatever is most popular and start writing code. Most of them only read the headlines on Slashdot and avoid what is commonly percieved as the braindead remarks of clueless morons who blather on and on about which distribution is better, what's the best color, etc. I wouldn't count Slashdot user comments as your finger on the pulse of serious Linux developers.
May I remind you, Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox use Redhat. Why? Well, it's a Linux kernel and GNU tools...like every other distribution. If you were the "power user" you claim to be, you'd be able to step back out of your narrow paradigm and grasp this simple concept.
Don't do what M$ wanted (Score:1)
Since RH is the one that can gather support from big companies (and Caldera with their OpenLinux probably next), when we start to kill RH from the inside, then M$ has already won.
If we fight among ourselves, there's nothing to be gained from it.
Red Hat is an easy management sell (Score:1)
RHAD Labs (Score:1)
Skimming over the comments thus far, I didn't notice any about RHAD Labs [redhat.com], although a recent post did make mention of Rasterman.
I think it's extremely important to note that while Redhat not only packages its distribution under the GPL, it funds development of such software. We are all well aware that for Linux to become a viable system for out-of-the box use by novices, certain components absolutely need to be developed.
I don't intend to get invoved in everybody's holy war between Gnome, KDE, CDE and whatever else is out there, so I won't make any claims about Gnome's superiority. But it is out there, and is a big step in the direction of novice useability. Developers will also recognize Imlib as a sizeable contribution Redhat developers have made to the Linux community. The list goes on.
Of course, the money to fund full-time employees to write free software has to come from somewhere. And this is where the corporate presence comes in. It becomes difficult for us to distinguish between the corporate Redhat who sells user support as the added value (which is legitimately worth the cash paid for it) and the free Redhat who distributes its product the old-fashioned way.
Redhat as a distribution is another story entirely. Whether it complies to the FSSTD, has your favorite software pre-packaged, or whatever, is a completely subjective issue. But Redhat as a company is unquestionably non-destructive, and in fact helpful to the Linux community at large.
"Well, he don't know the meaning of dope when he's looking for a suit and tie rap that's cleaner than a bar of soap. And i'm the dirtiest thing in sight, matter of fact, break out the girls and let's have a mud fight."
Dan Rosen
Redhat bashing? Redhat groupies! (Score:1)
been widespread Redhat bashing going on
Slashdot. This must be a case of people wounded by
criticism (fair and unfair) of their favourite distro.
In fact, and this series of comments shows it
quite obviously, Slashdot is very Redhat friendly
and seems to have a fair amount of "Redhat groupies" in its daily postings.
Back to the topic at hand, I don't think that
Redhat has done a single bad thing that annoyed
people so much, but they made several decisions in
the last year that I find questionable.
On the technical side the move to glibc2 was
probably premature and it showed. 5.1 was a mess,
constant upgrades were necessary, and I had the
feeling that they rushed it out for whatever
reason. 5.2 was finally stabilized. But there
were several annoyances in the upgrades that
just accumulated and I finally had the impression
that their handiwork was just not up to snuff.
I basically felt I was part of a really large beta
test. So when Suse6.0 came out I switched at my
home machine and found it of much sounder quality
especially for a supposedly "unstable"
Politically, their original wavering with the LSB
was a mistake, although incredibly there are
people even now arguing that it was the right decision.
The other political decision I did and do not
understand was the KDE/QT/GNOME issue.
Their public denouncement of KDE because of the
QT issue was IMHO one of the reason for the
division of the community in this matter (Bruce
Perens essay didn't help either). As has been
pointed out Redhat at that time was far from free
from proprietary software (not in the base but in
the add-on software), and they even shipped
(allowed shipping) RH5.2 with KDE in Europe,
further undermining their original reasoning in this matter.
Their very active support of GNOME instead of supporting the Harmony effort (a GPL
clone of the QT library that died quickly when
Troll tech announced the QPL) also disturbed me
quite a bit at that time.
Now it can be argued that even this has born
fruits, as maybe Troll would not have QPLed QT
without the big furor about it, and now (or soon
enough hopefully) there are two desktop
environments available (and competition is
good as they say). But the division and bad blood
that the KDE/GNOME flames created will be
difficult to heal, and I think Redhat has to take
some responsibility for it (as do others).
Will Redhat be the next Microsoft? No, but there
are possibilities which I would not like to see
happen, some of them have been pointed out earlier
like dependence of widely popular commercial
software on the Redhat distro, forcing everybody
else to emulate their system to make such binaries
work. But I kind of doubt this will happen.
Anyway, I am now running Redhat at the lab and
Suse at home and really the differences are not as
big as most people make them out, some of contrib
rpm's install and run fine on both systems. That
might change again since Redhat is pushing
glibc2.1 (again I think that this is too early)
but we will see. If I get disenchanted by Suse and
Redhat delivers a more solid distro maybe I switch
back who knows.
only one problem with Red Hat (Score:2)
RH 5.9 has 1779 executables in
One company I worked at many years ago had a simple directory structure for the user commands:
/usr/bin - utilities supplied by manufacturer
/usr/local/bin - stuff developed in-house
/usr/contrib/bin - stuff developed by people outside the company, i.e. net community
Purchased 3rd party applications would usually find themselves under
The users could run the command 'which ' and immediately tell who they were supposed to ask for support just by looking at the path name. Anything under
RedHat's packaging of binaries would have us believe that they developed everything in their distro, and that programs such as pbmtoptx are absolute requirements such that the system is completely unusable without them.
find belongs in
C'mon Red Hat, get with the program!
It's the brand name (Score:2)
Red hat has been really successful in creating a well-known brand name. This is the problem. They are stealing the fire from Linux itself. Probably 95% of the good things that Red Hat offers are not Red Hat. They're just Linux.
Some people outside of the Linux world think that Red Hat is synonymous with Linux. They are not even aware that there are other distributions.
It's only natural that this bugs people. A lot of people spend a lot of their own personal time contributing freeware to Linux and associated software. It bugs them to see all of this sold as "Red Hat".
In my opinion, the best way to combat this is not to condemn Red Hat, but rather to make sure that there are always many different distributions of Linux, and that no one of them comes to dominate.
It's the brand name (Score:2)
AC
Red Hat... (Score:3)
the OSS model. Are they doing the right thing??
A number of 'fears' which are generated when the
word Red Hat comes to mind is:
- Possible Microsoft replacement
A monopoly on package distribution format,
as well as 'Red Hats implementation is the
"right" way!' debate
- Start setting standards which is not in favor
of the Linux community
Again, a monopoly effect.
- Is becoming the 'de facto' in terms as to what
Vendors release their applications to (i.e the
infamous RPM vs. DEB debate...)
- And a minor note...it is getting rid of the 'Why I love Linux' effect.
But, it all boils down to the question which
manu people have given ideas to, debated over,
maybe lost sleep to:
Can you make money out of the OSS model?
Maybe Red Hat is the answer for Linux to go
Commercial, and then again maybe not.
What's really scary is that other distributions
are being 'left out'. Maybe it is part of the
capitalism world which we belong to in
which the 'strongest' survive, and unfortunately
the strongest seem to have money.
We need reassurance from Red Hat which they will
not become another Microsoft. Assurance in their
actions will not contradict the OSS model. Assurance that their influence in the commercial
markets will be beneficial for both the commercial and linux communities.
I hope this thread or responses to this 'Ask Slashdot' question will generate ideas and
promote a better path for the linux community.
Remember our goal...'World Domination!'
-Frank Macha
emacha_frank@yahoo.com
#include
#include
#include "Gotta_Love_Linux.h"
Legitimize among the people _I_ have to deal with (Score:1)
I'm interested in legitimising Linux in those terms, granted - but only as a means to an end.
I want packaged software to be made available for Linux. I want hardware vendors and service providers to continue to respond to problem reports after I admit that I'm using Linux, rather than just going silent on me or saying "Lie-nooks? I don't think we support that."
I don't really care whether Linux is used by large corporations, per se. However, I do want to see more reports like the 3Com one [slashdot.org] - where the big players say "We want Linux support" and it happens.
Without corporate acceptance of Linux, that kind of thing is just a dream.
Commodore PET Rules! (Score:1)
But, other than the superiority of the PET 2001 Series, we do need to limit the bickering and the flames.
My view on this (Score:1)
I had another brief stint with Redhat 5.0 after that (or was it 5.1, it doesn't matter). It was nice. But there was just a feeling of not fitting well. Perhaps its too "one-size fits all", but something about it seems too sanitary.
Then I moved on to debian. I'll never go back. I think most people say it's for experienced users, because dselect (the package installation/management program) can be quite intimidating at first. It took me a good week the first time around to get things installed correctly. Now I can install things in a matter of minutes because I already have a package listing of the packages I like. So if I have to replace my system, or install a new one I can do something like:
dpkg --set-selections filename
and then perhaps a
apt-get upgrade
and it automatically gets the newest version, installs and configures all the packages. All I have to do is hit enter a bunch of times at the end.
Debian is by far the easiest to maintain distro that I've used. Most hard-to-configure programs come with a program called 'programname'config. Just run that and you can reconfigure sendmail, or apache, or squid, or whatever. Very slick.
If people can get beyond the dogma they'll find a very professional, very well packaged, very easy to maintain distrubution.
There are legitimate complaints, but I agree. (Score:1)
a good chunk of this goes to R$A's pocket... there is no way to give this away for free in the US.
i disagree that this is a complaint.
henri
Actions speak louder than words (Score:1)
>not become another Microsoft. Assurance in their
>actions will not contradict the OSS model.
>Assurance that their influence in the commercial
>markets will be beneficial for both the
>commercial and linux communities.
Actions speak louder than words, and RedHat's actions have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that they are going to become another Microsoft, that they will violate the spirit of OSS, or that they are jeapordizing the relationship between the commercial and linux communities.
RedHat sponsors massive numbers of coders who write nothing but GPL'd code, they take care of getting Linux noticed in good ways by the press.
They made RPM which (not starting a deb v rpm war) is a viable and effective method of software distribution. In fact during a recent presentation on Microsoft SMS 2.0, Windows 2000, and DLL Hell, a consultee of mine turned to me and asked 'so basically Microsoft is claiming that in a few years, their DLL management will be as good as RedHat has today?'
I'd LOVE to hear a well-reasoned writeup on why RedHat is bad and should be trashed though. SysV init scripts, RPM package management, and one of the more overlooked advantages, wide installed base means it's more likely somebody else ran into the bug you're experiencing.
GeekWorld and RedHat (Score:1)
Red Hat has received multiple grants of funds from industry heavyweights during the past few months, including Intel, Netscape and IBM. Also, Red Hat has become the major source for US vendors for a "standardized" Linux distribution. While I myself use Red Hat, I in no way see that Red Hat should become a "buzz-vendor" of Linux. Should Dell have, for instance, chosen SuSE Linux to be their distribution of choice for workstations, the announcement, in my belief, would not have created as much a stir as the decision to use the well-known US company's distribution.
Now, on to my previous statement [slashdot.org] about GeekWorld being a PR stunt. While Red Hat may have hit home with PC vendors and the mainstream public interest (for instance, readers of CNET News.Com), the company realizes the potential this capital has. Mainly, it will help attract new Linux developers to work for RedHat, but more importantly, it has the ability to draw users.
What other Linux distribution group has the funding to launch its own television advertising campaign? Possibly SuSE or Pacific HiTech, but keep in mind they are international vendors. Not that Red Hat has done so, but high profile media advertising (ie. television, the New York Times, or other popular newspapers) is definitely a viable option at this point. Branding of the company's red hat logo could be just as important to the company as the "Where do you want to go today?" slogan is to Microsoft. Keep in mind, Red Hat is a company. And its ultimate goal is to make a profit, albeit, in this case, there is a purpose behind the goal other than money. Note that it pays other developers around the world to keep working on projects such as GNOME.
GeekWorld seems to me to be a way of saying to the general public "Red Hat is as cool as MTV," alluding to the popular "Real World" television show. And in essence, Red Hat may imply that the people who use their distribution are also that 'cool.'
GeekWorld is a contest. And, therefore; will most likely will get much publicity, much like the Wired Magazine journalist's article [wired.com]. I would not be surprised if I saw a side-story about the contest winners on World News Tonight during the week of Linux Expo. Of course, Red Hat will gain a national spotlight in this sense, thereby growing consumer awareness of their product.
Note: The following becomes slightly off-topic from the subject of Red Hat paranoia, but it was part of the letter nonetheless.
About the difficulty of the contest: There is actually nothing really difficult about it. For instance, many geeks out there are taking their time away from kernel hacking (or whatever they used to coding) and writing Perl scripts that will scour Red Hat's site from 12AM to 11:59 PM and start over again the next day, just looking for that small footprint.
I do not denounce Red Hat for doing this. The Linux community needs something like this every once in a while to add some excitement to the regular life of the average geek. Heck, I'd love to go myself. However, I've got a summer job coming up, I'm an active coder on an open source project, and I'll be perfectly happy attending the Season Finals of the Professional Gamers' League in Manhattan, NY - it's free and definitely a lot closer. Also, I don't have to find a GNOME logo to go.
- Shaheen Gandhi (sgandhi@andrew.cmu.edu)
I have faith in Freedom... (Score:1)
> procedure, and I also would like to see DEB
> more on par with RPM on optional packaging for
> software
I have to take issue with this. I maintained about 30 rpm packages long ago, and currently maintain about 90 packages for debian, so I'm very familiar with both source formats.
Rpm's format looks easier on the surface, but the fact is if you maintain rpm packages over a long period of time, especially lots of packages, you start discovering that you're wasting a lot of time diddling around with patch files, messy spec file hacks, and so on.
Debian's format looks harder on the surface, but once I got over the learning curve with it I found that it let me be much more productive, which is mainly why I maintain 90 packages today as opposed to only 30-some rpm packages before. It's also conceptually much cleaner - it's just a makefile after all. And more powerful - it's a makefile after all and you can do amazing things with a makefile.
> but I understand that it's more
> difficult to maintain a DEB package than it is
> to write a RPM
Ah, there's the rub. You _write_ a rpm spec file. You _maintain_ a debian package. Of course it's more work to do the latter, since maintaining a package is a continuing process. This is of course why
And of course tools like debhelper have considerably lowered the bar for newcomers to debian source packages.
/usr/anal/bin (Score:1)
Let's face it: no Unix does the path thing properly, and none ever will. As long as Redhat's maintaining some sort of order in their paths, I don't really think it matters all that much.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
My view on this (Score:1)
>been thinking about trying potato, but
>I'm wary since it's still in development.
>Is it pretty stable?
As potato is in development, packages may or may not break without any notification. I wouldn't recommend using it on production systems. However, if you don't mind a program occiasonally breaking, you certainly could give it a try. But keep in mind that downgrading from potato to slink isn't as easy as upgrading from slink to potato!
Debian vs Redhat (someone had to say it) (Score:1)
Sometimes alien doesn't work very well indeed. But then again, it isn't that difficult to create Debian packages. You can ar -x package.deb and untar the two files that come out of the ar command. More information is at www.debian.org [debian.org].
You need several Debian packages in order to be able to easily create Debian packages yourself, but you may install them using ar/tar: devscripts, dpkg-dev, dh-make and debhelper, iirc. Just try it yourself a few times, once you get the idea it isn't that difficult!
What's the worst that can happen? (Score:1)
Paranoia (Score:1)
Tall Poppy Syndrome (Score:1)
Doesn't stop it from being pathetic.
Red Hat is NOT the problem ... (Score:1)
I intentionally tried to purchase a shrink wrapped box of Red Hat Linux to show my appreciation of their support for open source/Free software. However, despite the box having Red Hat version 5.2 and the manual seeming to be theirs too - there were these notes about McMillan .
Without the details my question was forwarded to RH, where I learned this was not their distribution. Moreover, they do not receive any funds for its sale. Well next time it's the "original" when I pull a copy off of a CompUSA shelf.
As long as there is GPL, and developers continue to improve the design and implementation no distribution will become another MS in the Linux world.
Redhat isn't evil (this from the competition) (Score:5)
Sure I feel that Redhat often puts commercial deadline before high quality and stability and I feel even more like Redhat is continuing the Windoze tradition of .0 releases being unstable and buggy before they fix them in .1 and .2 releases, but still that is my personal perception and gripe. It doesn't necessarily make Redhat evil per se and Redhat has opened their development efforts more which will help to cure the buggy .0 release syndrome. That's GOOD and I applaud them for this.
And of course I feel Debian is a better distribution. Why else would I spend my time working on it? But just because Debian is IMO better doesn't make the others BAD. I'm greatly saddened by all of the my-software-rules-and-yours-sucks crap I see on irc and in newsgroups and mailing lists. If you think a particular piece of software is crap, don't run it, it's simple. Or even better, tell the people responsible for new releases what you want to see. What's the worst that could happen, they tell you they won't make the changes you want to see? Bickering like I see constantly helps nobody.
You'd be surprised how many times I have told someone "I don't like this about your software, would you consider maybe making it more like this instead?" to receive an answer in a day or two on the order of "Great idea! Why didn't I think of it sooner?"
What about the right tool for the job? (Score:1)
NASA=acronym
NSA=abbreviation
Of course, some terms could go either way (like LOL)
Sue a proprietary software company? HAH! (Score:1)
Find me *ONE* instance of a business suing Microsoft because of losses caused by problems with Windows NT. ONE instance. I bet you won't find one, because any lawyer on the planet would laugh you out of their office if you walked in and said "I want to sue Microsoft because Windows NT ate my company's payroll." It just can't be done, because you signed away your right to sue when you agreed to the NT license. A contract is a contract, bud, and if you don't want to abide by your side of the contract, then don't enter into it.
Which, of course, is where Linux comes in. If there's a bug in Linux at least you can fix it yourself. In the meantime, my brother's company is spending large sums of money due to NT crashes and reboots. Every time NT crashes out on an oil rig out in the Gulf of Mexico, they have to spend close to a thousand dollars flying somebody out there on a helicopter to fix it. The biggest problem, memory leaks in the DCOM stack, recieves a big "that will be fixed in Windows 2000" response from Microsoft. That doesn't help him now!
Yeah. Accountability. Sure. What you REALLY mean is that Microsoft provides an excuse. Can't get your network to work properly? Blame it on Microsoft instead of getting off your fat overpaid bum and fixing it!
SuSE Paranoia (Score:1)
SLS is long gone, and Slackware still remains. Who gets the last laugh?
Now you know why I no longer run SuSE on my machines. Don't get me wrong, it's a great distribution. But until the YaST license is freed, I intend to avoid it. After all, the whole point of free software is to get away from restrictive licenses.
Re: What about Standard? (Score:2)
As far as the FSSTAND goes, Red Hat does quite well at complying with the major portions of it. The only thing I can think of that they don't do correctly is that print filter configuration stuff is in
Really, I think Red Hat is attacked not because of what they've done, but, rather, because they are successful. There's always a fringe around that is ready to attack anybody who is actually doing something. Usually these are 16 year old script kiddies who have opinions about everything, know it all, and believe they are God's gift to programmers because they figured out how to compile "hello.c" last week (you know, the one that prints "Hello World!" on the screen?).
-- Eric
RedHat has done nothing wrong! (Score:1)
RedHat has done nothing wrong so far. Some people are just paranoid about the greed of others. They see RedHat becoming quite successful and wonder if they are going to try (i'm not saying it's even possible) to manipulate the Linux community in harmful or even just distasteful ways. I really think though that some of the other distro's would be in more of a position to do this if they were as popular as RedHat considering the proprietary tools in some of these other distro's.
As for the files being in the wrong places, I don't really think it would be that hard to make other distro's compatible with RedHat by using symlinks.
I have personally tried several different distro's... Debian, RedHat, Suse, and Slackware. I like RedHat best not just because it's most popular or because Linus uses it, I like the handy GPL'ed graphical tools and these make it easier for me to do common tasks quickly (which I suspect is probably the reason Linus uses RH ). If I find that somehow RedHat is doing something harmful or distasteful I will drop it that very day and install Debian.
RedHat is trying to steal our women! (Score:1)
My girlfriend left me for a redhat employee with a fancy car and lucrative stock options! RedHat is trying to destroy the OS community by stealing our women and leaving us without heirs!
I say we hit them where they live. We must inject sterility drugs into the redhat software development complexes, those monolithic towers which will surpass their cousins in redmont all too soon.
because were snobs (Score:3)
Why do so many of us dislike Red Hat? We're snobs, that's why. We pride ourselves on using an "alternative" Operating System. Now that Linux is starting to be used by Joe User, we are losing that special feeling that we get by being part of an exclusive group. You hear the same thing when an underground music group suddenly gets popular. People running for the doors screaming "SELL OUT".
Red Hat is largely responsible for the current popularity and press coverage of Linux. Red Hat has the corporate structure that makes other companies feel safe when handing over million dollar checks. Bottom Line is, Red Hat is working VERY hard at making Linux a mainstream, full service OS. Red Hat is doing a very good job of it too. It's no suprise that there is resentment from people as Linux grows in popularity. Us Linux users prefer to live out on the fringe. Now we are losing that frontier feeling, and some of us aren't happy about it.
We have to blame someone, right?
Not much, really. (Score:2)
That said, Red Hat isn't always the leader. Their distribution has odd quirks, as all distributions do, and they can be annoying. But fear and loathing isn't about irritating RedHat-isms. It's about people thinking that a company which funds Free Software development, has made virtually everything they have produced available under the GPL, and has done more to actively push Linux than anyone else save for possibly VAR is going to try and take over the world. Listen up, people - Even if they wanted to, it wouldn't happen. People who rant about Red Hat are the same ones who extoll the virtues of Free Software, saying that something like that can't happen with [Favorite Free license here]. Red Hat is not the enemy. And if you don't like them, don't use their distro! There are many others, and let's not forget that one of those others is the most popular in Europe.
GPL (Score:1)
This is why the GPL was created. As long as RedHat keeps on with their policy of releasing everything under the GPL, they can do NOTHING as far as "hijacking" Linux. Period.
SLS->Slackware->RedHat->? (Score:1)
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Red Hat (Score:1)
As much as I agree with this, I think a significant reason behind this attitude is the number of
How? (Score:1)
Also, it has supported free software via the right methods, by fundings its general development and releasing its source code under the GPL, without replacing the copyright and without claiming ownership.
So, while it is possible their may be an evil plan afoot, I can't possibly see what it is. Closing the RPM format? It would succeed to breaking old distributions and a converter would exist within hours of its release to an open format. Closing other code? What code?
I guess I just don't see it.
It's the lack of a quality product (Score:1)
How? (Score:1)
Unix compatibility != RedHat (Score:1)
Paranoia (Score:1)
only one problem with Red Hat (Score:1)
A distribution should never touch /usr/local. That's the whole point of /usr/local -- it's somewhere for the local admin to put things that where they won't get touched. If Red Hat ever put anything in /usr/local... well, I just don't want to think about it.
You should read the FHS [pathname.com] some time instead of shooting off at the mouth randomly. Here's what is says about /usr/local [pathname.com].
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Gustav Eimar (Score:1)
If there is any reasson to fear and loathe redhat its for the fvwm95 and that controll panel thingie that comes with it. Yuck.
Differing opinions vs hatred (Score:1)
Don't like it (Score:1)
That being said, I believe Redhat is a good distro for beginners (although I still think everyone should start with Slackware).
Joe
Please elaborate... (Score:1)
I don't necessarily think that Debian is good for experienced users, but that it's not the best for beginners. You have to know what you're doing more than you would with other distros.
I think all distros have value.
Don't like it (Score:1)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by (MICROSOFT convert!!!). I haven't used M$ products for about 1.5 years (except at work).
Joe
My view on this (Score:1)
That's pretty close to the same path I took.
Slackware (with kernel 2.0.0) to Redhat 4.2 (and eventually upgraded to 5.0) to SuSE (5.2 -> 5.3 -> 6.0) to Debian 2.1 when it came out. I haven't looked back since.
Are you using slink or potato? I've been thinking about trying potato, but I'm wary since it's still in development. Is it pretty stable?
Now that I think about it, I tried Stampede for about a week also.
Don't like it (Score:1)
Why did you choose Redhat for your servers? (I'm not saying it was a bad choice, I'm just curious).
redhat is sluuggish and useless (Score:1)
execution of a linux install? Or perhaps the actual execution speed of the resultant install? Redhat does! They execute at less than half the of the speed of my slackware install. I wish I understood why.
\
What Standard?!!! (Score:5)
While there might be some debate about stuff floating around in /etc or other areas, I highly doubt that Red Hat intentionally did it to insure they were the only distribution that would run propriatery software. Quite to the contrarary, Several other distributions are _based_ on Red Hat's distribution. These other distributions coupled with Red Hat's large Linux market share do make Red Hat the de-facto standard (so to speak) when a ISV looks in at Linux from the outside world and considers porting thier application to Linux.
Now, consider the fact that the LSB stands to be the largest, most widely acceptable Linux standard. This is the one oppertunity that Red Hat has had to really do some damage, and they didn't, and won't. Red Hat had an early oppertunity to join the LSB, and declined. Why you ask? Because Red Hat KNEW that if they were one of the orignal members of the LSB there would be resentment and resistance, therefore, in the best interest of the LSB itself, they held back. After the LSB started to gain acceptance, Red Hat signed on, only after criticizm from the Linux community (including massive flame-age here on SlashDot "Why won't Red Hat join the LSB!?!"). Then, once Red Hat did goin the LSB, they did not push for domanance, only volenteered thier services, which included paid manhours, to work on standards that were agreed upon by the community, not Red Hat. Red Hat did the right thing!
So, why is Red Hat so despised? Well, because they have a legitimate right to be respected, and they GPL thier work, and they have done great service to the Linux community. That adds up to becoming a power in the Linux community, and people (Including me) BUY thier CD's on occasion to support a company that supports paying people to write GPL code.
Does Red Hat suck? Well, Yes. For some people, in some cases, it sucks. RPM's can be a headache, and I believe that the RPM technology is probably superior to how Red Hat even uses it (which is why other distributions use RPM's, but it's "Red Hat RPM's" that are most complained about). What else? Well, can you say "120M+ minimal install" even after you go through all the menus and unselelect everything (Which is why I use Debian on some of my smaller specific purpose systems). And, then there is the the whole init battle, and if your not use to it, it can be a pain in the rear to work with. So, yes, if your use to something else, or you have a specific need, or ..... then Red Hat Linux may not be the right Linux for you. In many cases, to many people, Red Hat Sux. ;-)
But, overall, for the majority of people, Red Hat is just fine, no problems, actually better than most. Is there any reason to Hate of Fear Red Hat? Heck no!
As for "They don't stick to standards for file layouts or much else, so you can run an alternate distribution -- but not if you want to use something without source.", I have to ask, WHO IN THIER RIGHT MIND WOULD RELEASE SHRINK WRAP SOFTWARE TO THE _SMALLEST_ MARKET SEGMENT?!?!? Yea, it's not exactly the same as every other linux, but they aren't exactly the same as each other either. Given enought time, for every 1 thing you can find "non-standard" and actually referance a standard that _should_ be, and it's source, I can probably find you at least 2 non standard things in Slackware, Debian, or anything else. So, I say, "Please Site Your Source Of Linux Standards. :-)" AFAIK, the LSB will be the standard, and Red Hat will _comply_ to the LSB, not the other way around.
What about Standard? (Score:1)
Remember, the goal is to have Linux on every desktop, including where we work, we're going to get stuck using commercial software, so at least let us run a GOOD distribution... like Stampede
There are legitimate complaints, but I agree. (Score:1)
1. Timely security updates don't always happen. Go over to Linux Weekly News and read the back issues-- Red Hat has dropped the ball several times with regard to security updates, and there has been no indication of how this will be consistently addressed in the future.
2. A history of upgrade problems. Every distribution has had upgrade difficulties at some point, of course, but it seems like RH has had more than its share.
3. Immature bug tracking. Red Hat did not have a public bug tracking system before bugzilla was released.
4. Lack of update tools. e.g.: no single, approved command to check for and install any "errata" patches over the internet.
5. Frequently inaccessible ftp server, hard to locate list of mirrors.
6. $99 for a proprietary secure web server.
7. Please add to this list.
These are largely management problems rather than technical problems. If Red Hat resembles Microsoft, it is in putting publicity and financing before the needs of its customers. As to any sort of "monopoly" power-- no chance. RH knows damn well that any attempt to monopolize the Linux market will destroy it.
The idea is to advance and succeed (Score:1)
I don't hate Red Hat, but make no mistake about it: Excellence is not their forte. This is precisely why I worry. If I want to use another distribution that I might consider to be of higher quality (Debian for me), then I worry about a time where I need to install some program that requires RedHat, and I'm in big trouble. Red Hat has been good about releasing their code, but what about the future?
No way. Computers are my livelihood. I'm not going to stop worrying and fretting about it, because relaxation really is the enemy of quality.
I've been fortunate so far because the Red Hat-specific packages I've used (actually just Sybase so far) have been usable once converted with alien.
I wish people like you, calling others "fools" and such, would take the time to learn a little bit more about these issues. Have you used anything other than Red Hat? Do you know how RH differs from some other distros and from the filesystem standard? My guess is no on both counts.
It's not what they do it's what they produce (Score:1)
It is what you add to Linux that makes you good. If Redhat continues to add code improvements (Like RPM) or just continues to be a GREAT marketing name (something my bos recignizes) I'll continue to support them.
The day they apear to have just put code in a box i'll stop buying. (Like Slackware)
I heard Young says he is selling a brand name. I hope this dosn't loose site of what this work is. A colabritive effert to make the computer world better.
Re: What about Standard? (Score:2)
>because of what they've done, but, rather,
>because they are successful.
No, I think you are wrong, and should be flamed to death for this.
Just kidding.
I think you are completely right. And in addition, what really does not help is that age-old phenomenon of "you are wrong because I am right" that exists in *every* market.
Take cars. Take TVs. Take stereo systems. Take toilet paper. If a product is labelled "bad", it is quite often because the person wielding the "labelling machine" uses another (competing) product.
Hence Linux is bad because the guy doing the labelling is a Windows user, RPM is bad according to a
Hey, remember the times back in kiddie school when girls/boys were bad because they weren't boys/girls?
//toolz
GPL (Score:1)
That's doubly impressive; as we know, Debian is not the easiest one to install either.
"Legitimize" - among whom? (Score:1)
With all due respect, while it is nice to have the backing and support of these, they are not what run things in the world of free software. Never was, really. UNIX has always in its 30-year history been a loosely gathered collection of free software (GNU or not) - thousands of small pieces that work together in a mosaic, much like developers who create them.
RedHat's role? Well, consider this. The user demographics will not change much, come Linux world domination. Then, as now, there will be technology have's and technology have-not's.
Roughly the same groups of people will want to use a commercial product, with commercial polishing on the edges, and thus pay money to be allowed ro remain "dumb" with respect to the software they use. These are the mortals, the mission statement generators, the people with other interests. Also, roughly the same groups of people will remain "power users" and developers: People who desire more sophistication and flexibility, and who appreciate the freedom that the bazaar model gives them to achieve this.
The former group today uses Windows, the latter Linux. Within the Linux camp, you have a preview of tomorrow's landscape: The former group uses RedHat/SuSE/Caldera, the latter uses Debian. (Roughly the same people who now uses Amigas, OS/2, etc will stick with Slackware, for nostalgic reasons).
That said, Linux domination will bring about a better world than the current proprietary domination by Microsoft.
Sure, there is no doubt that commerial software will be released specifically for RedHat. (Hopefully the LSB effort can provide a pseudo/proxy-platform before too long, to preempt such a trend. Ian Jackson of Debian has some good views on this). Regardless, binary compatability of such commercial applications to other distributions is almost certain to remain intact.
Look at FreeBSD's excellent Linux emulation for an example of this. The only applications you cannot run under it are the same ones that seem to be very fuzzy with various Linux installations as well: StarOffice, to name one. The GNU license ensures that the basics of the RedHat platform (i.e. the kernel, libc, X toolkits, core utilities) remain open.
Now, AFAIK, there are already more developers working on Debian than any other operating system in the world. Add to this that people who develop UNIX software in general are more useful to Debian than to, say, Windows. This trend will continue. As such, free software development is not really dependent on what a particular corporation does or does not do. We thrive with today's direct hostility from Microsoft, I am sure we can excel even in a RedHat dominated world, and even if today's cool people at RedHat get replaced with corporate zombies who misunderstand the dynamics around free software and instead try to be more short-sighted for their own personal benefit.
To put it bluntly: Should RedHat Inc. ever change, it would be their loss, not so much ours.
Correction re: FreeBSD & StarOffice (Score:1)
It does. SO4 Service pack 3 did not straight out of the box, however, because it accessed the
The problem does not exist with the last version of StarOffice.
Hope this preemted flames from overzealous FreeBSDers.
Debian vs Redhat (someone had to say it) (Score:1)
Kindof unfair, don't you think, after that inflammatory tone in your post? ('verbal community that is more willing to attack') Especially since you base that on such an innocent remark from one person - a remark that also has some truth to it?
Either way. Some facts.
In the stable/released version of Debian, packages have gone through month-long scrutiny and testing. They are out of date if you e.g. want to parttake in development of subcomponents. So are RedHat's releases. There is not much difference time-wise between these.
In the unstable branch, however, you keep yourself on the bleeding edge of things. For instance, Debian was the first to include glibc2.1 (which will break StarOffice, btw), always have the latest snapshots of things like enlightenment and gnome, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Portions of apt are considered stable, and included in the last stable distribution, slink. That includes the 'apt' backend for the 'dselect' utility as well as the 'apt-get' command line tool.
To make a
Now, the reason why Debian really stands out (aside from being the largest distribution with the most activity in it): Its menu system. Its bug tracking system. Its package managers. Basically the bookkeeping that automates virtually everything, from upgrading your system in-place to keeping all installed window managers with up-to-date default menus to being perhaps the most secure UNIX around (I know OpenBSD also has a reputation of that kind).
After all, there is a reason why Corel chose to base their "ultra-userfriendly" distribution on Debian - all the infrastructure is geared towards complete maintainability.
A Thought Experiment -- Use the Source... (Score:2)
I think the situation you describe is the very idea that people are having so many knee-jerk reactions to. In many respects I consider it a testament to the sheer might of the Microsoft corporate machine, and the degree to which tbey have fundamentally changed our perception of OS software companies. Microsoft has the power to change the game by introducing new cards into play. They can do this because they write the rules and they make the cards, so to be able to use the cards, and hence learn the new rules, you must be 'friends' {e.g. pay money to} with Microsoft. For anyone who might be nervous that RedHat is trying to get into the card-making business for the Linux game, need not worry. Because of the foresightedness of the GPL license, not only is RedHat allowed to make new rules, but so am I and so are you, and hence we ALL get to make new cards to use with the new rules that help to extend and expand the game of Linux.
In this way, the company that attempts to comandeer the game of Linux is going to rapidly find themselves playing at an ever shrinking table. And this would not be profitable. So this will not happen.
Sean
According to the specification... (Score:1)
So exactly which version of RedHat are you using? I've been using RedHat since 3.0.3, and I've never seen it mess with /usr/local (other than creating the directory stubs allowed under the FHS).
Paranoia (Score:1)
... which is now being phased out (by Red Hat, at least), now that someone has created a free replacement (Electric Eyes, GQview, etc).
What are other distros doing for image viewers?
Wil
--
Internet Meta-Resources [navi.net]:
Not so many legitimate complaints after all (Score:1)
> They almost always happen in a more timely manner for Red Hat than any other distribution (perhaps excluding Debian, I wouldn't know).
I used to agree with this, sadly I don't think I can any more. How long did it take Redhat to get the latest procmail fix out? 2 weeks? That's inexcusable, they used to get fixes out in under 24 hours. And it's not the first time either. I'm a long time Redhat user (3.5 years now maybe? since 2.0 whenever that was), but one of the reasons I switched from Slackware was timely security updates. Since those seem to have become a thing of the past, I'm about to jump ship to Debian.
Sad (Score:2)
GPL code, developer sponsorship, FSF contribs (Score:1)
Secondly, they sponsor Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, David Miller, Rasterman, Federico Quintero, and others, as well as sponsoring projects like the port of KDE to Qt 2.0 and the Gnome project.
I don't know the recent stats, but three years ago, RedHat was the largest single contributor to the Free Software Foundation.
Now I'm a Debian user, and professional Free Software developer, but I have great difficulty finding any faults with Red Hat, other than the fact that their growing pains sometimes show themselves by a less-than-polished performance. They deserve their success, and I hope they all get a nice big bucket of money.
I like 'em, tho I'm not in love with their distro (Score:1)
I started on Slack, and ran it for a long time, back when RedHat was way less important than it is now. I don't consider Slack particularly hard to install. I enjoyed running it. I didn't enjoy upgrading it in serious ways however. When comes to serious packages like libc's and whatever, I want to know I've killed old stuff before putting in new stuff, not go chasing around files that have moved. It becomes increasingly hard to keep a Slack system up to date as it ages.
I still run a Slack3.1 system at home. I must enjoy suffering.
I started using RedHat with 5.1. I disagree with the comment above basing 5.1; it always worked well for me. Granted, I'm sitting here at CMU and applying all the updates wasn't a big deal
I kill all rpm stuff on kernels (I do those the normal old fashioned way. just plain easier). I kill it mostly on X. I have a lot of video cards floating around as a game developer, and frequently swap them around. I can't deal with this XConfigurator @#$%, I use xf86config, and always found it perfectly straightforward. For that matter I skip the config proggy and just write out a config file (or hack an old one). They're not that bad. I can't wait around for RPM's of the latest XFree86 release to come out -- I needed the XSuSE servers as soon as they were available. For that matter after all this time I don't really quite understand the way RH's X works if you follow their setup
But it's nice to be able to select features from 5.2/whatever's fresh and just put'em in with a one liner, or easily switch versions of wine for whatever I need to work right.
I dislike immensely the stupid win95 lookalike default WM config. What a mistake. I know GNOME/KDE weren't available. I don't care. They shoulda chosen a clean, elegant fvwm2 config with a good menu and some nice wallpaper
The other thing I can't stand is the control-panel. Just gets in the way, more likely to whack out your scripts, makes scripts harder to read. I wanna read man pages and do them by hand dammit.
I've recently installed Debian on my second computer (can't do it to my main machine till I get a fresh HD, can't risk a non-working machine). I like it a lot. The package system is better. The distro is much easier to manage from config files. Installing a whole mess of packages is easier (I never got thru installing GNOME 1.0. never figured out quite which rpm's were essential, or quite what order to install them in. bleah. I think I eventually found the instructions but the GNOME people should put the essential stuff in a big tarball with easy rpm install intructions...end digression...). From a technological standpoint it's just a better distro IMHO.
What does this mean? I like RedHat. I've used their stuff a hell of a lot. But they're not invincible, and the better distro will always win.
This is Linux after all. Down deep, we use it 'cos it's better. Oh, and because we like really cool desktops
What about Standard? (Score:2)
Can anyone name any commercial software that runs ONLY on a Rehdat based system??
I betcha' can't... RH is "just" Linux... there is nothing intrinsicly in RH that is not in every other flavour of Linux. Remember, they give their source changes back to the source pool according to the GPL just like everyone else does.
RH bashing just reeks of sour grapes -- they've (and Caldera) been very effective at getting peple to take Linux seriously, and that's because they have done a LOT of hard work.
I think that what's really bugging the people who seem to have a grudge against RedHat, is that as Linux becomes more accessible to non-experts the whiners will no longer be members of an exclusive club.
These whining weasels should grow up, get a real job, a life, and enjoy the fact that they were in at the beginning of the revolution, and most importantly, start coding!!!!
_DHMSpector
It's not what they do it's what they produce (Score:1)
Debian's packaging system is a lot nicer, because they had a chance to learn from the mistakes in rpm. I don't know if it's technically possible for RedHat to graft Debian-like functionality onto their RPM system, but it would sure be nice if they could figure out how.
It's not really fair to knock rpm and RedHat for being first, ya know.
Paranoia (Score:1)
If there are "proprietary tools" in SuSE, then "the whole OS", in the sense of SuSE Linux, is already "no longer [free]", at least in the "speech" sense.
However, more than just the kernel is free, in the speech (and beer) sense; the C library is free, as are the other libraries that implement the UNIX API, and as are the utilities that implement the UNIX command set and most of the GUI (Qt 1.x being an exception, although 2.0 might be considered free).
SuSE (or any other distributor), for example, couldn't keep you from redistributing, for free (speech and beer), the free components in its OS. Only if its monopoly got people to depend on the proprietary parts of the OS (and if those parts couldn't be, or weren't, cloned) would they have a stranglehold.
Pure Distribution (Score:1)
They did a lot of good (Score:2)
Not so many legitimate complaints after all (Score:1)
It's not clear to me that automatically installing errata is a good thing. I make it a point to read the errata carefully to decide whether to install things.
Nevertheless, there are readily available tools that do exactly what you want. And if you don't like the various contributed programs, it can be done in three lines from the shell:
wget -m ftp://updates.redhat.com/5.2/alpha/
for p in *.rpm; do rpm -q `rpm -qp --queryformat '%{name}' $p` && pl="$pl $p"; done
rpm -U $pl
Mind the ticks and backticks. If you're not sufficiently familiar with RPM to do things like this, put it in a script and preface it with a '#!/bin/sh' line.
Firstly, you should be using a mirror. And secondly, the mirrors are trivial to find. It took me less than thirty seconds to find the list of mirror sites [redhat.com] When there is a competing non-proprietary secure web server that can be freely distributed in the US for commercial use, then you might have some grounds for complaining about this. I don't want to be US-centric, but the reality is that currently Red Hat products have to be packaged for sale in the US (and, in the case of secure web servers, only in the US, due to our stupid laws).What is there to dislike? (Score:1)
I don't buy the argument that we should dislike Redhat for charging for their software. The GPL explicitly encourages the sale of the code, and if you really don't like it, just do what I do and download and burn your own CD for free.
R
All im gonna say... (Score:1)
Red Hat makes me happy (Score:1)
Good products sell well
Selling well means getting lots of money
Lots of money buys lots of hackers
Hackers create free software
Free software makes me happy
Ergo Red Hat makes me happy
i used to be a bootdisk-0.95 user, then a sls user, then a slackware user, briefly a debian user and back to slackware,
but after RH 2.1 I really haven't wanted to tinker with my machine enough to compile every single new package I install from source, I really have better things to do with my computer than
around installing new versions of packages from source.
Red Hat Backlash? (Score:1)
San Jose, and introduced myself, then had the opportunity to ask him a question or two, and IMHO he was quite arrogant, as he also was when Linus
was featured at the show. This was the first time a company invested in Red Hat, and it went to their heads.
I respect Marc and Donnie, and the others and have been a supporter for years, but it has been noticable. It's the OS and the *users* that made Red Hat, not Bob Young.
only one problem with Red Hat (Score:1)
look, i can see ee belonging in
a lot of the things from
but why would a linux box but them there? gnu utils *are* it's default utils.
as to why redhat has more binaries in
Red Hat... (Score:1)
"can you make money with the oss model?" redhat's distribution is gpl'd, their software is gpl'd, and almost all the software is free software in some manner. they mad alliances with closed source companies, but have slowly been getting away from that except wrt video drivers for x. and even there they team up with video vendors and then lobby them to go open source.
rpm fears. rpm is gpl'd software. anyone can use it. is it better then dpkg? damned if i know, but if rpm is winning out why not look into merging dpkg features into rpm?
"assurances." you want to know their commitment to free software? you want a statement? why? actions speak louder then words, and all their software **AND** documentation is gpl'd.
Freeing KDE (Score:1)
Jamie McCarthy
Good question...what have they done? (Score:2)
I used redhat linux, I can often be found downloading the latest upgrades, I think rpm is rad, but I'm probably going to be moving to Debian. Why? Because I'm becoming more and more of a GNU hardliner in my old age. (20) I just like the idea of a more ideologically "pure" distribution in that Debian is NOTHING but Free Software.
It seems to me as though we're almost headed toward the type of paradox that is there with Microsoft - it seems everybody hates them but at the same time, they have 80% market share. How does that work exactly? I am not comparing redhat to microsoft in terms of what they do, but rather they both have huge market shares of their respective markets, and both seem to be disliked.
Distro? (Score:1)
> large box with one small piece of paper inside
> with a ftp address so the user can just download
> the source and build it himself
Sounds very much like Slackware to me
GPL (Score:2)
Now, if they start releasing proprietary software, then we could be in trouble, but I suspect enough people would drop them like a hot potatoe that they would about lose their position in the Linux world.
These are Redhat's most egregious faults! (Score:3)
Note for the Humor Impaired, this is SATIRE!
This PROVES that RedHat is evil, beyond redemption, and it must die!!!
Oh. Can I have access to their bank account though? I've been jealous of how much money they make!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Three names that make the difference Alan Cox, Ste (Score:1)
ideology, Debian is superior.
But those three names make a FUCK of a lot of difference to me as a person,
and as a Linux user.
Red hat is not evil, Rather Like going to the dentist, tolerated, beneficial but painful.
If Red hat had 99% of the "linux" market I could care less as long as the Linux kernel
standards are open, and there are no proprietary drivers/protocals.
I believe that it will not happen.
Red hat the company has never to my knowledge been anti-other-distros; that is the key.
Microsoft on the other hand, is anti anything other then Microsoft.
Distros are a matter of taste, are you not glad that, you have many choices?
Three names that make the difference Alan Cox, Ste (Score:1)
Three names that make the difference Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, David Miller.
All of this is nonsense (Score:5)
- Red Hat is getting popular, so they must be getting like Micros~1.
- Red Hat is the distro for Windows haters, not "serious" unix folks.
Facts:- Red Hat offers a LOT of value for the money. Cutting edge software, a nice powerful installer, good package management, great response to security issues, etc.
- Red Hat returns stuff to the community (all their management utils are open source. They use linuxconf by default instead of something like YAST
Bottom line: Red Hat keeps up with the times, they play by the rules, and their distro is very good. What else do you want?They haven't done anything wrong yet.
RedHat is Linux is GNU ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not worried (Score:3)
1. Redhat releases almost all of their products under the GPL, and releases all their "core" products under the GPL (ie libraries, rpm software, etc. as opposed to BRU2000, applixware, etc.)
2. If the above changes, many Linux users and developers would switch distributions. Of course, then people writing free software wouldn't be able to improve key components of the Redhat distro, which (presumably) would cause it to be left behind.
There are some real issues, however:
1. It is possible that commercial software vendors will only support Redhat. However, since detection of libraries works so easily, libraries wouldn't be a problem. The occassional shell script referring to, say,
2. Redhat is actively targetting newbies. This means that it's likely to get a prettier and prettier face by default, and hence one which is simpler. Hopefully, they will keep an "advanced options" button in an easy to find location. But if not, it's Linux -- we can find the text files to edit and configure by hand if need be. Of course, there's something to be said for being forced to read all the info. I learned a lot more from my first slackware install than I do from install Redhat by reading the package descriptions and being forced to figure out how to configure things. Nonetheless, these days, I'll take simplicity and sloth anyday.
-Muffie
Linux did the same thing.... (Score:2)
What about the right tool for the job? (Score:2)
Redhat pays for a lot of software development and forced the other distrobutions to try harder. If linux was still slackware ( I started on slack w/ 1.2.13 ) how many of you that dismiss Redhat would know what the hell linux is... ?
Everyone that belly aches about Graphical User Interface configuration tools. You can still use the console. I give newbies console instructions to setup/trouble shoot their modems, and let them use netcfg with vi for ppp. I think you should use the right tool for the job, reguardless.
I've installed only Debian, Slackware, and RedHat... and I choose RedHat for my personal use. You should refer new users to a distrobution or even OS that fits *their needs. BeOS, linux, BSD, AIX, SunOS, Solaris, NT, etc... everyone has a tool that fits their hand. Please remember this before you tell a newbie to "...just go get distro X, it's what I use. ".
I managed to type this without a single acronym! ^_^* back to the grind
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Red Hat (Score:3)
It's like a bad Dilbert cartoon: you say to the pointy-haired boss, "We can install Linux. It will save us several thousand dollars, because it's free."
"What's free?"
"Linux."
"For how long?"
"Forever."
"But how much do we have to pay to install it?"
"Nothing."
"But if it's free, we can't get tech support, can we?"
"Yes. Tech support by the geek community at-large. For free."
"Okay, but then we obviously have to pay a fee for upgrades."
You can continue to say "no" at this point, and the boss will be convinced that it's some sort of underhanded budget trick--or worse yet, a joke on him--or you can say:
"Well, yeah... if we buy RedHat."
"What's RedHat?"
"It's the most expensive version of Linux."
"How much?"
...at this point, you basically name a number that doesn't sound too absurd. You want a hundred boxes for the office? tell him $5K. You want to show him amazing savings? Get ten, and tell him $500. You want to see if he'll bite? Get one (so you can have that nifty manual) and say $150, for the whole office. And buy your office some beers with the change.
As my friend said, "Management likes to buy things. If you tell them they can have things (especially expensive things like operating system upgrades) without buying them, they won't ever believe you."
So RedHat is not only not evil, but the fact that somebody is actually selling Linux is making The Suits pay attention, and even though Suits in our little world may be a Bad Thing(tm), there will never come a day when any one company can "own" Linux. Linus saw to that back in the day.
-jurph
Depends-- (Score:2)
I know, this is just a small convenience in the greater scheme of things, but as with your example, it is also well thought-out. Just . . . well-thought out in a different way
(And just not too long ago I was annoyed finding my RPM'ed GQmpeg binary in
Good question...what have they done? (Score:5)
You can't ignore the contributions RedHat has made to the community - they gave us the first of the easier-to-install distributions (back when they came out, I wouldn't call Slackware "easy"). They gave us RPM to make system maintenance and upgrading easy...I know I'd have a lot more headaches if it weren't for RPMs. I think it's tough to argue that any other distribution to this point has had such a significant impact in the general computing community. And now, they're putting capital into the RedHat Labs, helping to make GNOME into a stable and viable desktop system that works, and looks good doing it. (I don't like the look/feel of KDE, personally, and KDE won't get along with WindowMaker as well as I'd like.)
The original question does raise a valid point - could RedHat turn to the "dark side"? I'd argue that the fact that all of RedHat's software is GPL'd makes it difficult at best. Some people might argue that RedHat's now dependent on the investments from various big names in the computing industry, but, once again, I think the Linux community in itself is a strong enough influence to keep RedHat in line. If RedHat were to try and push things "too far" away from OpenSource software, they'll have people rm -rf
RedHat has done nothing but make a name (Score:2)
Once someone starts using Linux whether it is RedHat or something else.This will get them to start reading and gathering more information and see that there are other distibutions out there.
The only fear I have is if/when RedHat goes public and the possibility of board members that are from proprietary companies can start steering the ship. Thats when we should start worrying or start buy as much of their stock as possible to keep them heading the right direction.
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Red Hat (Score:4)
The reasons cited fall into two categories. The first look like:
But what worried me were some of the other reasons given for choosing Red Hat:
Those last few reasons are arguments for Red Hat regardless of technical or economic superiority.
Now, what may have happened here was that, in some organizations' cases, the people in charge of making the decision were already RH partisans. The justifications were easy-to-articulate surface statements, and their hard-to-articulate judgements that led them to that position didn't come out.
In some way, I'm glad that there are several distros out there that are close enough technically that this level of discussion is enough. But that won't always be the case if the sentiment in those last few statements overtakes enough of us.
Well, it obviously won't, at least not entirely. There will still be people out there who wipe their new Dell's RH installation to install SuSE, even if that blows away their phone support. But the attitude I worry about is, to steal a phrase from IBM's FUD glory days,
Jay
Linux Elitism: Et tu Brutae? (Score:5)
I've survived the following "My system is better than your system" elitist wars:
- TRS-80 vs Apple vs Commodore Pet
- Vic-20 vs Atari 400
- CBM-64 vs Atari 800 vs Radio Shack Color Computer
- Amiga vs Mac vs IBM PC
- IBM OS/2 vs Windows 3.1 vs Windows NT 3.51
- IBM OS/2 vs Windows 95 vs Windows NT 3.51
- Windows 9x vs Windows NT
- ETC, ad nauseum
I even remember bitter battles over which was the better CP/M platform! I've been working with personal computers longer than some of you have been alive, giving me must a little bit of experience in this. The one thing that has never changed in the 21 years is the fact that everyone wants to feel that their choice is the right one.- NT users sneer at Windows 9x users.
- Windows 9x users sneer at Windows 3.x users
- Linux users sneer at Windows users
- FreeBSD users sneer at Linux users.
- Mac users sneer at us
- We sneer at Mac users
In Linux we have a very good operating system. Since you're all reading this, you know WHY you're running Linux. Choice is good. Multiple distros are good. Elitism is not good.The first version of Linux I ever saw and used was Yggdrasil. I've also run Slackware, Debian and of course Red Hat. They were all good. I have my favorite. Even Linux Mandrake is good, without it, I probably wouldn't have tried KDE. Yes, I've even run FreeBSD.
The point is, enjoy what you use. Don't try to fragment the Linux or even the *nix community by all this bickering over distributions. To do so is playing exactly as hoped for in the recent Microsoft white paper on how to deal with the Linux threat. Microsoft FUD doesn't work very well against Linux, their best hope is for balkanization of the Linux community thereby causing us to lose focus.
So, let's try to calm the elitist urges within us and work for the common goals: