On Red Hat Bashing... 335
The following was written by GNOME Guy, Slashdot Reader and pure energy beam, Miguel de Icaza
Recently many people have criticized Red Hat from many points of view, and during the construction of their arguments, they have ignored a lot of the work that Red Hat has given back to the community. Having personal friends at Red Hat and having talked to them in the past has given me a wider perspective on what actually is going on at Red Hat than most people who only have heard about them.
The importance of Free Software (as in Open Source).
People have complained that some ISV companies are targeting a specific GNU/Linux distribution, and that this alienates the users of other distributions. I do believe that people are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective. Many ISVs are not only targetting some particular version of GNU/Linux, they are also targetting a specific platform of GNU/Linux. They are not allowing the end user to make a choice of kernel, the choice of a distribution, or the choice of a platform.
Let me explain: people who write proprietary software are interested in marketing a software product as a piece of intellectual property that they own and that comes with a price tag, which does not provide the end users with any of the freedoms that the GNU project has identified as important for software. Without these freedoms you are not only potentially locked to a particular distribution: you are locked to a particular kernel, and you are definely locked into a particular platform. You will not get proprietary software to work on your favorite port of the operating system. Forget about the SPARC, the Alpha, the PowerPC, the Motorola, and the StrongARM architectures if you go the proprietary way.
Red Hat and Freedomware (as in OpenSource, Free Software)
So far, Red Hat is the only major visible commercial distribution that distributes all of their development under a free license (LGPL or GPL for their new work, or under the proper compatible license for packages they do not maintain). And they also manage to make money during this process.
Now, making money by giving away your intelectual property is a hard problem. Some people have just given up. Various distributions include proprietary code in their distribution to add a value to their product. The result is of course, a non-free product: you as an end user are forbidden from making copies of it entirely, you might not even get the source code in some cases, and you are definetly forbidden from making changes and redistributing modified versions of it. It comes to mind, the proprietary graphical install programs being shipped these days.
Red Hat standing for Freedomware
When the KDE desktop project started to take off, the licensing problem of Qt became obvious to many people: If we allowed this important component to be non free in a GNU/Linux system, then it would have been impossible to have a completely free (in the sense of freedom) desktop system that people could use, distribute, modify, and redistribute.
Many distributions chose to ship the non-free KDE/Qt combo as part of their systems, as it gave them a competitive advantage on the market. Concerns about a free system came in second place. Red Hat instead of going for the easy money, actually devoted a growing team of programmers to help build a completely free desktop: I am sure they lost sales while preparing for this free system to be built, and I am sure it costed them money to pay their GNOME programmers.
Still, Red Hat stood up for the free software community. To them it was more important to have a full open source desktop than making a quick sell. Given that the Qt toolkit will soon be released with an open-source license this is not an issue anymore. I am presenting this exclusively as an historical data point.
XXXX
Red Hat and Debian are my favorite Linux-based distributions. Actually, they are the best designed and open distributions of Unix from my point of view: they do ship all of their code under a free license.
This, from my point of view is very appealing. Various of my friends are involved in deploying free systems based on GNU and Linux in Mexico in a number of very different setups.
They did require modified versions of the installation program, and modified versions of the packages they use. Not all, but some of them. So the distribution is pretty much Red Hat Linux with some added features that they need for their vertical application. This is something that can be done legally thanks to the fact that the Red Hat distribution does not include "special cases".
Doing something
If you want to see commercial-grade applications on the free systems and have users have total control of the code, the platform, the operating system and the distribution, promote free software: help free software developers, contribute code, contribute proof-reading time, contribute documentation or help other people understand why free software is important.
Disclaimer
These are just my personal opinions. I am not speaking for any project I am involved with in this mail nor am I speaking for any organization I belong to. These are strictly my personal opinions.
I do not work for Red Hat and I have not worked for Red Hat in the past. I have just contributed and worked with their hackers in the past.
Miguel de Icaza.
miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx
everyone should listen to Miguel (Score:1)
I use Redhat on two different machines. I will continue to use Redhat, and I will continue to lend my CD-Roms (purchased from CheapBytes) to my friends to save them a few dollars.
Anyone who thinks Redhat is evil doesn't understand that the market is changing. More than ever before, open standards are seen as superior. Redhat's increased brand-awareness will only serve to push the status-quo toward widespread acceptance of OSS.
Redhat is a good way for people to get to know linux. After that, Debian is also an option. Note that Debian uses RPM's (thanks to Redhat) to increase its distributability.
The biggest hurdles for linux (or any other M$ alternative) will be establishing a distribution network and providing quick and easy software updates. The OSS model has the potential to revolutionize both of these. Redhat Software is the materialization of OSS's shift into the mainstream.
The one on top will always be bashed... (Score:1)
Read before you flame! (Score:1)
Clearly Miguel has let the issue die, and is prepared to say so publicly. You seem to be the one who is keeping it alive.
RedHat DOESN'T charge $80 for 6.0! (Score:1)
Re:The 'Mouth' Speaks...and I am an idiot (Score:1)
Fixed!! (Score:1)
Now that will fix the problem for everybody (of course after I fix it for root and my own account). Sorry about the rant but my systems' been going psycho lately and I was trying to rm
Rich hackers? Or a hacker trust? (Score:1)
Does it mean that they could take 20% of the stock they float, put it in to a trust, open up the IPO, watch it blow a hole in the roof, sell the stock on the open market and have a hacker's trust fund worth billions?
I've never understood the Redhat fear, sure they are a company and sure they are out to make money but they are about as altruistic as any software company around. Much better than any of the hardware guys you buy your hardware from... The true test will be when they get serious competition, but they've been so good about keeping things free that a lot of the competition bases their products on Redhat's distribution. I hope the money doesn't go to their head, I'm kind of inclined to think it won't because they seem to have a good understanding of the community.
Linux is a dead OS. (Score:1)
GNOME will never prevail over KDE. Nor will KDE kill GNOME. Development in Linux will become more split as developers are forced to choose between KDE or GNOME development. We have already seen the wheel reinvented many times. Right now GNOME developers are racing to beat KDE developers in applications. KDE already started the race with KOffice. GNOME is playing catch-up with gnumeric and misc. other hack-togethers. While KDE started development with stability a priority (don't know if it still is) GNOME started off with creating quick hacks as to catch-up with KDE.
The only reason Red Hat wanted Qt to die was because they could not sell programs created with Qt without giving royalties to Troll Tech. They are total hypocrites when they publish documents saying how Qt is bad because you can not modify source code when they shipped Netscape and others that don't even have source code.
Linux's only destiny is to fade away.
Anyways.. it's just software. Meaningless bits of bullshit. Stop fucking it all up and just use it. Before computers altogether become a nerds-only thing again. You are all taking for granted the popularity Microsoft/IBM gave to computers. Be happy you can even use a computer at work instead of insist on using your favorite OS (your favorite won't always be your neighbor's). Once Microsoft is gone I don't think Linux will be able to keep the common user happy.. and I don't think Red Hat has big enough balls to be the next Microsoft anyways.
Volunteerism and software (Score:3)
Consider the following people:
(a) A carpenter who volunteers in a soup kitchen on weeknights.
(b) A waiter who volunteers for Habitat for Humanity on weekends.
Is one of these people better than the other? Should Carpenter chastise Waiter, simply because Waiter charges people for food? Should Waiter chastise Carpenter, simply because Carpenter charges people to build houses? Of course not.
Of course, if Waiter started building houses for the rich, then I wouldn't be surprised if Carpenter got mad. Similarly, if the Carpenter started giving away gourmet food in the lobby of Merrill-Lynch at lunchtime, I wouldn't be surprised if Waiter got mad.
Now, consider this one:
(c) You, who does X for a living, and volunteers to write software.
(d) Someone else, who writes software for pay, and does X in his spare time for free.
I bet you can do the math. You have no call to criticize Software Boy for writing software, just as he has no call to criticize you for doing X. If anything, HE may be able to criticize YOU for providing free software to people who can pay for it. That one goes the other way, of course, but I don't know what X is.
I think that I've made my point, but I'm going to go a (controversial) step further, while I'm on the ol' soapbox.
For all of you out there who think that you're doing the Lord's work by writing free software, guess what? Free software is not the ultimate in altruism. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it's pretty low on the altruism totem pole, compared to, say, youth outreach, helping illiterates learn how to read, most kinds of work with the poor, and a LOT of other things. Now, hey, if that's where your particular skill lies, and you really enjoy it, then go for it, it IS appreciated. But don't get high-n-mighty about it. Frankly, I'd rather see you spending your time teaching underprivileged children the basics of computing.
And maybe the person that you criticized does just that. Maybe not, but you didn't bother to ask.
Re:And look behind them... (Score:5)
but RH is a business run by businessmen.
So what? I've heard this argument again and again and again in the Linux community, and it makes no sense.
It's a business. That in itself is not evil. It makes it different...or are you just admitting you are scared of something that is "different"? Do you really need to be reminded that *many* businesses promote research and extend technologies everyday, ranging from computer technologies, engineering, and basic science research? We buy from them as consumers _all the time_. If they're bad, we've been buying from them for ages and are implicated in their longevity.
Really--I think it's because of the threat of a "business mentality" calls up all sorts of bad images. But frankly, we view the worse and forget the best and average that businesses produce. A different mentality in the Linux community isn't going to kill us, and if we can't handle it, Linux deserves to be splintered for their incapacity of staying together.
However, should this get taken too far, Debian is right there.
And? Are people so caught up against Red Hat that they've forgotten the basic principles behind Open Source? It's been like this ever since someone modified Open Source source code. You have a choice to use it or not. You have a choice to modify it.
Not to mention, this "Debian is right there" approaches more of a _business_ attitude: there is competition. You know what? Good. I like that. Better code is written, more products are released, programs and distros improve.
All this RH bashing is simply like-MS sentiment brought into the Linux community. People use what they will and what they want. They have the right to be stupid. But, as the MetroWerks article a few days ago showed, there are people that have created RH FUD. MetroWerks NEVER had an exclusive agreement, and RH NEVER forced them to. But people here still insist, without evidence, that RH is evil because of a product's packaging. If you don't want it shrink wrapped, don't buy it.
Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:4)
No, not Linux 2.x, but Red Hat. Why? Because with 3 other platforms to develop on I don't want to take the time to see what, if any, differences I might find on Debian, Slackware, or any of the others. By supporting Red Hat, I can cover Intel, Sparc, and Alpha in a fairly straight forward fashion. Why did I choose Red Hat? It was an easy choice, I already had it and so did the customer.
You want people like me to open the code? Not going to happen. You want me to support all versions of Linux? Pay me more money. Does that make me just another developer whore? I'll let you decide.
Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:2)
If you have worked in a Help Desk/Support environment, you'll know the importance of having a similar environment in which all your users (that you support) are working in. It is much easier to train techs to know what problems might pop up between your applications and one distribution of Linux that between your applications and all/any distribution.
At this point, it is enough of a stretch for many of these vendors to train their techs on one distribution of Linux and we should be happy with it. As Linux becomes more and more mainstream, it will become more cost-effective for these vendors to support their apps on multiple distributions and they will.
For now, be happy with what you can get.
(I speak for myself, and only myself.)
Re:Red Hat convinced TrollTech? (Score:2)
Red Hat convinced TrollTech? When and in with regard to what?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said Red Hat actively tried to convince Troll Tech to Free their source, not that they convinced them.
I have no knowledge of whether or not there were direct meetings between Red Hat employees and Troll Tech employees, but there were a few public announcements from Red Hat saying in effect "We think Troll Tech should consider changing their licensing". At the same time, many other individuals and organizations were also trying to convince Troll Tech to do the same.
Since then, Troll Tech has produced the QPL, and released some beta software under it. Nobody can legitimately say "Red Hat convinced them", since that implies they deserve all the credit, which they don't. On the other hand, Troll Tech was convinced, and Red Hat was part of the group convincing them.
Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:2)
what is it that they do? put together a linux installation? i can do this too, you can do this;
Yes, but neither of us can do it as well as Red Hat did. Hell, I'd have trouble doing it as well as Slackware did.
why did rasterman leave them? he obviously thought there's smth wrong with them. (i can't see using anything but e)
I do not know why he decided to leave, I would think that he felt the working environment was wrong for him. Rasterman has always seemed to have more of an Artist's temperament than a Programmer's, and they put him in RHAD Labs with a bunch of hardcore programmers.
All I know is what I've observed, and I've observed a couple of design arguments on public mailing lists between him and other RHAD developers. It seemed like they had good ideas, and he had good ideas, but they just weren't speaking the same language. If he can get the backing (and I think he could) Raster would do well to start his own company.
Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:4)
How does the recent announcement(s) of software that is supported under "RH only" work into this? Is there something added/mangled by RH to enforce this or are the companies only going to offer support if you say that you have an RH release. (Purchased or dl'ed? Will there be a difference?)
There is nothing added by Red Hat to Linux to enforce "Red Hat Only" software. When you see proprietary Linux software labeled "For Red Hat Linux", all it means is that they only bothered to test it on Red Hat (and probably only a specific version of Red Hat). If you try to use it on anything else, they won't support you. This is not Red Hat's doing, it is lazy commercial developers.
And who decides these things? The software companies?
Yes.
Or RH? "We'll give you $X if you only support RH..."
To my knowledge Red Hat has never done this; not even with developers they have had special agreements with (such as TriTeal and Applix). In fact, Red Hat has actively tried to convince several companies to Free their source code (eg. Intel, TrollTech).
Re:Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:1)
Tough, it's not going to happen.
Re:Buy Freedom! (Score:1)
RedHat would have had to pay 0 royalties to put QT in RedHat. The reason why they didn't was that it was not free (as in free speech), not free (as in free beer).
And please don't stoop to deluded paranoid ramblings about RPM.
Re:An Anti-Red Hat Example ? (Score:1)
Also, try looking CheapBytes [cheapbytes.com].
You aren't part of our community. Go away.
Re:Two interesting, but loosly backed up points: (Score:1)
2. Being paid to code is bad. Being paid to write proprietary code is bad. I hope I never fall so low as to need to get a job like that.
What am I on??? (Score:1)
2. Being paid to code is good, being paid to write proprietary code is bad.
Re:An Anti-Red Hat Example ? (Score:1)
Re:This is what compatibility standards are for. (Score:1)
Still, they aren't touching desktop environments at this time. So I doubt there'd be any mention of needing Qt/GTK libraries. Personally, I'd be thrilled if a second or third standards draft required both sets of libraries. Choice is the key thing I enjoy most in Linux.
Maybe so.... (Score:1)
Ah well I'm gonna burn in hell for using SuSE anyway so what do I know.
Re:BUY DEBIAN! (Score:1)
Seriously though, everybody should use what _they_ want and if things get out of hand... use a _different_ BRAND. Thats what the distros are anyway _BRANDS_ like any other consumer item. Whether you like it or not.
And look behind them... (Score:3)
However, should this get taken too far, Debian is right there. It will run the software in most cases, is IMHO higher quality, and while it has its own problems (nothing is perfect) it is basically immune to the kind of corporate wheeling and dealing people are so afraid of. Don't think Red Hat isn't aware that if they make a big stumble Debian is right there to pick up the pieces. This will go a long way toward 'keeping them honest'.
As an interesting aside (to me anyway), I talked to an engineer a while back from a company who shall remain nameless ;) that ships a "Red Hat Linux" supported product. He said that all their development is done on Debian. Go figure.
Re:What Problems? (linuxconf, Netscape and gnome) (Score:1)
In addition, I've heard that people are having problems with gcc. Doesn't affect me, as I'm using egcs for a compiler.
Re:F*CKING RM!!!! (Score:1)
Maybe you should stop and learn more about Linux....
If I can add to that... (Score:2)
The result of that being that you could only install one RedHat per physical CD (again, this is for the $49 and not the power tools release).
The 6.0 release has none of these restrictions, since there doesn't appear to be any commercial software (except for on the Application CD, and each app has their own license). This then makes no difference between the FTP, CheapBytes, and $80 version, except the $80 has printed manuals and 30 days of phone support. And you can buy it in a store.
I've been a RH user since the 2.0 days, and it's an excellent distro. RPM far surpasses other package management systems. The technical support (what I've needed) has been excellent. Updates are quick, upgrading systems is easy, installation is pretty much painless. I'm not sure if the Official 6.0 is worth $80, but I paid it to show my support.
(Disclaimer: I'm writing a book on administration of RedHat-based machines - hopefully to be published late this summer)
My take on the RedHat bashing. (Score:1)
Just finish the Linux Standard Base specification and we can all code for the standard and it wont matter WHAT distro you use... the program will work.
Nuff said.
Re:"best designed" ? (Score:1)
You Zealot. I don't care if you prefer Debian or not, but doing that kind of comments is by no ways fair to RedHat or whatever distribution.
Re:The 'Mouth' Speaks... (Score:1)
Actually the new QT library 2.0 [troll.no] is out. The first public beta under the new LICENCE!!
And well koffice is freely downloadable and fas more advanced than Abiword or Gnumeric.
I don't see a problem mixing the two systems actually. If only Gnome/GTK apps reacted meanigfully to X hints and did not ignore every standard like session management, you wouldn't notice the difference between QT and GTK apps if you choose a plain theme.
Even Netscape looks like a native app due to krdb's style and color matching abilities.y
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
I also question the comments about the maturity of
RH 6.0. My experience is that it is the first time
that I've had a clean upgrade (and I've done 4.2-
5.0-5.1-5.2-6.0
Of course, I may have finally learned how to do
the upgrade correctly.
-Don
RH6 Instability (Score:1)
I've got to say that I've had problems with instability in RH6.
When I upgraded from Starbuck, GNOME would freeze everything (not just X) every couple of days.
Choosing an upgrade from Starbuck also somehow corrupted my XF86Config file (I had to run Xconfigurator again). With all the changes in xdm and xfs, I think that upgrade releases are of limited value.
I have since wiped and reloaded RH6, and the stability is much improved.
Re:Well, I am back to Slackware. (Score:3)
distro I made with some friends.
Recently I bought a RedHat 6.0 CD. I figured it was worth a try and I wondered why everyone was
always constantly bashing RedHat.
Granted, I don't particularly *like* the new way of things, but once you look at the way it's done and read some documentation, it's actually very easy to configure your system from the shell prompt.
The breaking up of say, the entire network init in a few directories with separate scripts for each interface makes my life a whole lot easier. I just have to edit one file instead of diving into rc.inet1 or rc.inet2, finding what needs changing
and changing that.
And okay, RH 6 came with GNOME. I like GNOME. I used to hate it, but I've come to like the flexibility it gives me.
On the MetroWerks issue; who prevents you from downloading alien, and turning it into a slackware package? I've done it often enough and sure, sometimes it's symlink city to make things work,
but aren't we forgetting that Linux=Linux=Linux no matter who distributes it? I've worked with RedHat, Slackware, Debian and SuSE, and they're all Linux. All distro's have ls, gcc, etc. -- they just have a different way of packaging things, and a different way of administrating things.
So far on my RH box, the only time I did use the control panel is when I wanted to find out what files were changed when you change the settings on your Ethernet interfaces. After that I did every change by hand, on the shell prompt.
Why do we (the Linux/OpenSource) community have to war over distributions when there is so much to be learned from the different ways these people have chosen to create the distro?
Wasn't the idea behind Linux 'free for all'?
Then why bother with the trivialities of exclusive
deals made by companies? What prevents you from going out, buying the RH CD with CodeWarrior on it and installing it on your Slackware box?
Before my RH 6 installation my system resembled the product of an orgy between Slack, Debian and RH. I used
Moral of the story: Everyone STFU about the petty little distribution wars, and let's kick some ass and make Linux grow.
(Yes, I am wearing my asbestos outfit, and yes, if you bring up that RH signing exclusive deals isn't helping Linux grow, then I won't bother responding. It's time to think people...)
Re:Volunteerism and software (Score:1)
- Lower quality, as it is not peer-reviewed
- An administrative/bookkeeping headache, due to restrictive licensing
- Overpriced
Closed software is going away, except for highly specialized vertical-market stuff. You can bemoan that fact, but it doesn't change the reality.--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here [kernel.org]!
Red Hat: the Good, the Bad (Score:1)
So, in my opinion: Red Hat is an awesome company that deserves to be commended for its staunch support of Free Software, and I welcome them the money they will hopefully make by being the most-commercially-supported distribution. Further, for anyone familiar and comfortable with UNIX and computers I recommend Debian and/or Slackware.
Re:Red Hat: the Good, the Bad (Score:1)
b) Gnome is "almost there." I like a lot of its premises, and the way it works. It bugs me significantly less than KDE, when it works. However, it is not a 1.0 release (the version that comes with Red Hat is what, 1.0.9?), and it should not be the default, encouraged environment for production environments.
Either way, I've spent money on Red Hat CDs to do my part in funding one of the most visible and active Linux supporters.
Re:Red Hat: the Good, the Bad (Score:1)
Try explaining to a large corporation that the software you label as 1.0, and recommend for production environments, isn't.
The differences of Linux and UNIX (Score:1)
It's not a cheap UNIX, but for all intents and purposes it is UNIX. As jwz has been quoted many times as saying, "Linux is only cheap if you don't value your time." That comment cuts both ways, and the same could be said of any free quality software.
I really enjoy Linux, but not Red Hat Linux. As I think I explained already, Red Hat is not the result of as much thought as some other distributions I could name.
As for 'Linux books,' which would you recommend? I already have Slackware Linux Unleashed, Linux in a Nutshell, The Complete Linux Kit, and maybe another one or two.
Re:Red Hat: the Good, the Bad (Score:1)
Re:libstdc++ ?? (Score:1)
Re:libstdc++ ?? (Score:1)
Flamewars in General (Score:1)
But, give me a break people. I'm on the Window Maker Mailing list. Someone asked a question on if they could get rid of the dock & the clip through checkboxes, and how he was using E right now, but wanted to use WM. All the person got was flames. Instead of a simple 'no', or a reason for a 'no', there were several postings about how much E sucks. How much GTK sucks. Absolutley nothing constructive of this question happened. One of the last postings to the thread pointed out that the binary already has some of these flags built in.
Yes, the RedHat distribution is different of that of Debian or Slackware. I don't really care for it much. However, the fact that RedHat has brought us more choice outweighs my dislike of RedHat. Like it or not, GNOME is going to help the Linux community grow. So will KDE.
Which is better?
vi or emacs?
E or WM?
Ford or Chevy?
351 Winston or a 350 short block?
I'm also a believer that good does, in fact, come from flame wars. I know that I have learned quite a bit from them. It's also good to get various points on a specific topic.
But.
All in all. I would ask one thing. The next time you are going to flame someone about something trivial like asking what the 'ls' command does. Or if they can have checkboxes in WM to disable/enable functions. Don't flame them. Type out the message. Don't send it.
Just remember we all crawled at one time.
Also remember that (this isn't meant to be a flame, more that we all do it) 640k will be more than enough to run any computer software.
Re:YOU'RE ALL SPOILED BRATS (Score:1)
That's the whole point of Miguel's letter. He is trying to point out that RedHat is a great member of the hacker community and continually donates to "Linux". He also seems to agree that an ISV who supports ONLY RH Linux 6.0 is a problem. Not only because they're locked into RH but also because they are locked into a kernel and platform.
Anyway, most of us are NOT spoiled brats! Most of us are thrilled to see companies making money by selling Linux distros, hardware, utils, and support. We just want to keep the things that made linux great in the first place, namely, power and freedom.
That is all,
-Derek
CodeWarrior issue. (Score:2)
Let's be honest, Redhat is not a solid distribution. It is flaky. It's probably the last distribution I would consider. However, it is the biggest name, arguably the most popular, and for Metrowerks to support them is not unusual. They can't expect to figure out how their product works on every distribution on the planet, and they probably won't be releasing their killer product as Open Source. So they had to pick a distribution. So what.
Bottom line: Redhat is nearly the standard, as are RPMs. It's too bad, but it's not RedHat's fault. They're successful, and it would be silly to expect them to apologize for it.
Re:The 'Anonymous Coward' Speaks... (Score:1)
They were right. It did!
A lot of people say "Who cares!", and "We need a fancy desktop like KDE if we are going to compete with Windows." So they stayed with KDE and the rest of us, including Red Hat, went to Gnome. They went with Gnome knowing that it would take longer to make it stable.
So now every KDE supporter compares KDE 1.2 to Gnome 1.0. They talk about Gnome being a waste of time. They even bring racism into it.
I think that building the GUI and toolkit from the ground up is a better idea for the Free Software culture in the long run. Red Hat made the decision to support Gnome at a time when KDE looked like the way to go. They did it because only FREE would do.
Re:My Problem: tcsh (Score:1)
x11amp (Score:1)
on the redhat box try changing the output plugin of x11amp to libesdout.so (the audio i/o tab of the options dialog)
Re:Missing a point. (Score:1)
Internet Time, I ignored this one, but you are probably right.
RMS vs. ESR, yeah, though to a much lesser extent.
Jon Katz, no.
I can only assume you say that it was a fad because teh number of katz hater posts has gone down. (I don't know if this is true or not, I'm making an assumption.) If that's why you say this I would like to point out I highly doubt it's because it's a 'fad'. Frankly whether he's supposed to be a 'god' or 'insightful' he's failed miserably on both counts. I've seen one article from him that was worth reading, and that was his collection of emails regarding the persecution of people who are different in the backlash following the columbine massacre. The real reason those comments have declined is because the most vocal anti-katz people, the people who had real reasons to complain, and specific examples to cite and aren't just looking for a place to vent in general gained the option to block his articles. Out of sight, out of mind. Half the time I forget he even exists anymore. If we were all forced to see his articles again I have a feeling the number of anti-katz articles would have another huge upswing.
Sorry Jon, I'm sure your a nice guy and all. I don't hate you personally, I don't even know you. And I'm sure there's a place for your writing, but I really don't think it's
refreshing (Score:1)
--
Re:Red Hat 6.0 problems (Score:1)
--
Re:"best designed" ? (Score:1)
--
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
I have associates running quake 2/3 servers on 5.2, with uptimes of 120+ days. That includes them HUPing init and all sorts of crazy stuff (Kevin
As stated, I have no problem with Red Hat, I just have seen some things in version 6.0 that should not exists, especially with it sitting on the shelf at Best Boy. (ha ha)
PS: Quote from my boss: "You reading that slapshot page again?!!?!" Hillarious.
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
The greatest thing about Red Hat has got to be RPMs. I know that Debian has their schtik and other distro's can user RPM's. It is a cool system, though sometimes kind of unreasonable. I never had too many problems with
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
1) Gnome would quit and take X with it
2) Netscape crashed consistantly (waybe not RH's fault)
3) xconfigurator chowed my settings a few times during reconfiguration, leading to a busted X
4) Minor small stuff
I understand and agree with the release early, release often methodology, but my real point was that if they are going to sell this distro and try to sway people to linux with it, it should be rock solid. Even idiot proof, but I know that that is impossible, given the vast number of creative idiots out there
PS: Things like 'Apache Default configuration' do not baffle me. In fact, the only thing that bothered me about the included apache was that I did not compile it.
Re:YOU'RE ALL SPOILED BRATS (Score:1)
I dont care if my install crashes. i do care if a marketing VP of billiondollar co. tries redhat to see if it is ready for the million machines in his company, and it crashes.
Get it? I can crash my own computer, thank you very much. My OS does not need to help.
PS: That was a fairly insightful comment, coming from a possible warez d00d (L1zard_K1n6).
My Problem (Score:2)
On the flip side, the distribution is feature filled, including many great packages like Gimp, Gnome and Enlightenment. Which, by the way, has matured vastly since the
A distribution with a de facto window manager is important, and Enlightenment is not only visually attractive, but powerful as well.
What would truly be proprietary.. (Score:1)
As for what *truly* proprietary would be, imagine this scenario:
A new company, JoeCool Linux comes out. They start out with a distribution not unlike Caldera or SuSE, in that they have both open source software and some bundled commercial apps. But the newest version of JoeCool suddenly has a libjoecool with the distribution. While no one knows quite what this does, everyone runs out to buy the new version of a commercial word processor that was "supported" only under JoeCool with past versions. They assume that "runs only on JoeCool" on the box is just wording, since the app will be obviously compatible with any other distribution. But after installation, the user tries to run the program, and finds that it won't work because it seems to be linked against a certain libjoecool, a library that is closed source and only comes with a licensed JoeCool distribution.
So you see, if you find anything disagreeable now, things could be a lot worse.
A look at the facts, please! (Score:3)
* Red Hat releases all software they write under the GPL, period.
* Since their distro-specific software is GPL'd, Red Hat relies on their brand name to drive sales. The only thing keeping their customers from switching to another Linux distro is our satisfaction with their product. The last thing a company in this position wants to do is to piss off their clientele! They will continue to do what their users' request, or they will go out of business.
* Success has not corrupted Red Hat. They continue to produce useful, GPL'd software. Their distro is still available for free FTP download.
I guess in this case, some believe that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc, it must be The New Microsoft. Maybe some people will never let the facts get in the way of severe paranoia.
Instead of speculating what Red Hat *might* do, let's instead look at what their trackrecord is extrapolate the future from there.
Re:My Problem (Score:2)
6.0 has met my needs very well, has solid uptime since my memory upgrade over a month ago, and Netscape has not crashed or leaked memory. I may have a different configuration of my 6.0 than he has, such as using MWM for my window manager. I am a minimalist. I use 6.0 on a 486, Pentium,and a Celery. Works great for me. Immature? Not in my case.
Re:My Problem (Score:2)
Release early, release often. One month? It just means they are getting up to speed!
My problem with Redhat, is that they don't release often enough. So, I often check out the development. In my experience, the release versions are solid, except for my experience with Netscape last year...
What sort of stuff did you have to HUP? I only had to HUP configuration changes.
Re:My Problem (Score:1)
> may not be keeping in mind that
> 5.0 and 5.1 preceded it, and were not exactly
> paragons of functional software
Most of the Red Hat horror stories I've heard were about Redhat x.0 releases (5.0 in particular). I suspect the same sort of thing is happening with the 6.0 release - what with *another* relatively major library change and associated bugs to work out.
The 5.1 release of Redhat, though, wasn't that bad. I've only used the version of 5.1 for Alphas, but there weren't really any showstopper problems except the jpeg library screw-ups (which got fixed), and the fact that "man" would crash.
"RTFM!"
"I can't! man dumps core."
5.2, at least on the Alpha, had a bad ramdisk image. This made install
I'll be waiting, like I suspect many of the rest of you, to upgrade my 5.2 boxes. They run stable, and they run everything I've needed to throw at them - including the latest kernel.
If it works and works well, why be in a big rush to upgrade?
(I may yet upgrade my Sparc IPXen to 6.0, though. How's Redhat 6.x on Sparcs? 5.2 has some occsaional lockup problems.)
YES IT IS!!!!!!! (Score:1)
But really, didn't Linus develop the original linux kernel because he wanted an inexpensive way to learn/hack UNIX? It's UNIX enough that you really don't HAVE to buy a Linux book, although it's different enough that it's certainly a good idea.
MY ADVICE: Fart Proudly.
Re:Confessions ... -- or the reason OSS must win! (Score:1)
And there you have it. The reason that small vertical market closed source software is the only closed source software that will ever survive.
Anyplace where there is a sufficient market to draw programmers from OSS will necasarily triumph. Nothing can stop that. It's almost like natural selection.
** Martin
Redhat is no more free than Caldera or S.u.S.E. (Score:1)
Personally, I do not think Redhat is evil or anything. They make some very major contributions, are pretty cool, and quite good in general. However, Redhat has become known for having extremely unstable x.0 distribs. 4.0 and 5.0, although featureful were so broken that I won't even look at 6 for a system I install until the next minor version is released. Furthermore, their install process in 5.* was often braindead, not restoring its connection with an ftp server until after it had already lost its first package, without which the system could not boot. Furthermore, Redhat has upped the cost of cds, has yet to get anywhere near S.u.S.E. in choice of software, nor anywhere near Caldera in easy of use. Their premature adoption of glibc was great for those of us who didn't adopt it until leater, but terrible for the newbies who got stuck with their system. I've never exactly been a big fan of rpm either.
I have no complaint about Redhat's corporate nature. However, the idea that they are more free than any other distro is absurd. Furthermore, Redhat has had plenty of technical shortcomings to fuel the disdain of Redhat naysayers without even getting into corporate motivations.
Re:"best designed" ? (Score:1)
On Red Hat Bashing (Score:1)
I have supported Red Hat in the past and continue
though not in my use of Linux.
I see Red Hat as the #1 packager of a free OS, and
retail arm of the Linux community. This does not make them perfect in the dealing with custmers, packaging, etc. Red Hat has in it's biggest need, marketing to win the Linux community, not just the
IPO related community.
Why I don't bash RedHat... (Score:5)
I use Debian, but I will NOT bash redhat for three very simple reasons.
Alan Cox
David Miller
Stephen Tweedie
They Make LINUX better every Day and Every way,
I as a Linux USER benefit directly from their work.
If they thought that Red Hat was Evil in any way, these people wold not WORK for Redhat.
Redhat is a company, even great company's make mistakes, or do things that I do not agree with.
Oh and one other thing, Redhat has contributed SOURCE over and over again, how many people can claim that?
As a Debian user I use software that redhat helped develop, it makes my system MORE secure and easier
to use, the software? PAM.
This is just another example, of Redhat ability to produce source that I use every day and benefit.
Openness is all that counts (Score:1)
All this just means they are a company that has to make money, but it is completely useless to judge a company by these criteria. The crucial point is whether they open source (preferably GPL) all the software that they write, i.e., whether they contribute back to the community.
So far, they seem to be pretty good at that. They fund the development of GPLed code. As long as they do this, what is the problem if they charge a bit more for a CD. This only means that all the non-programmers and non-documentation writers give, indirectly, something back to the community.
Chilli
PS: And if you don't like their installer, why not write a better one?
Aha ... that's the magic of cheapbytes (Score:1)
I slavishly upgrade whenever a new version of RedHat comes out, but since 4.2 I've burnt my own copies. Then came a change of job, and no more access to a CD writer. How was I going to get a copy of RedHat 6.0 (both Sparc and Intel)?
Easy. I bought them both at Cheapbytes for less than the cost of a blank CD in the UK.
I still buy my copies of Motif (sorry about the non-free software, but I need it for work) from RedHat, so they're getting something back from me using their distro.
The moral of this is:
Regardless of the price of an official boxset of RedHat, I don't have to pay that price, unless I want to
As for RedHat bashing, I agree that they only get slated because they are so popular. And the 'made for RedHat' syndrome also afflicts SuSE - Informix originally released their database only for SuSE Linux. But this is only a problem when you don't get the source. Even with semi-free packages like Qt, thanks to Troll Tech providing source, I can compile it on SuSE Linux, RedHat Linux, FreeBSD or even NetBSD.
Chris Wareham
Monopolies (Score:1)
The mere fact that some other product may, at some distant future point, gain dominance over a market does not indicate that a monopoly does not exist *now*. The fact that Microsoft could, right now, double the price of its Windows 98 without losing a significant portion of the desktop OS market is an indication of its monopoly power. Whether it can sustain its monopoly position for an extended period of time is another question.
Re:Fixed!! (Score:1)
I'm all for doing the chattr +i stuff, and I'll happily litter my filesystems with '-i' sparse (empty) files purely to catch out rm * things.
rm -f, on the other hand, will remove some things that rm on it's own won't do. Additionally, it never throws up warnings or errors, which might prove somewhat confusing.
Each to his own, of course - there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Dave.
(Who always makes a point of buying RH, seeing as I've made a living out of knowing Linux, I'm sure as hell not going to quibble over 80 quid, some of which is going to support the likes of Alan Cox... besides, the last really major problem I had with the distro was trying to find
Gnome RPM's (Score:1)
jf
This is what compatibility standards are for. (Score:1)
Is it really that hard to do for RedHat, Debian, Caldera, SUSE, and TurboLinux (Pacific-HiTec) to agree on a base set of libraries and partial system layout?
jf
YOU are the type of person that this is for. (Score:3)
Second: If you didn't know this already, then you are exactly the person that this "are you really sure?" safety net is designed for. Remove it at your own risk.
Distribution Exclusives (Score:2)
Likewise, the point is not whether CodeWarrior will work with other Linux distributions or not. The problem is that it is being marketed as exclusively Red Hat. Other major binary Linux product releases have not been marketed this way.
Let's look at the facts.
Why specifically put for Red Hat in the name of the product when that will only result in undercutting the sales to all the other distributions, especially in a market where the number of customers could be significant?
I'm not trying to bash Red Hat but this makes absolutely no sense. More important, it divides the community. And, it's not the way things have been done--until now.
The rules have changed. I want to know why. Don't you?
Re:Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:2)
I like redhat. (Score:2)
Redhat has a great install process. Better than the others, excluding OpenLinux 2.2. OL 2.2 hasn't installed on most of my machines, so I quit it for RH 6.0.
As for CodeWarrier being RH only, so what. Use GNU C you wimp! And installing tar files IS harder than RPM's. Yes, I can install anything, but I'd rather waste my time playing with it after the install, thank you.
As for them making tons of money, great! They're a business. And they're building a great distro. They're also helping to convert NT admins that have better things to do than twist thier minds into UNIX-space. That's a good thing.
And (and, and, and) they GPL thier $80 distro. I get mine from linuxcentral.com for $1.95. Great! More power to them.
I'm gonna buy a bunch of thier stock, too. So nyah!
-=nft=-
Missing a point. (Score:2)
Red Hat bashing *IS* a fad.
Linux is finishing the first of what will probably be several stages of bandwagon jumping. In the last two years, an enourmous ammount of technically-oriented people have jumped on the Linux bandwagon. Whenever these "surges" take place, many people, generally the type that jump off after using it for a short period of time, declare themselves as experts and throw thier opinions around as if they were the next messiah. This is especially evident in the case of GNOME -vs- KDE, where tempers and passion were high but the meaningful dialouge was amazingly hard to find. I dare say that most of those flamers and trendsetters have moved on to other "K-rad" things
examples of other Flamable Fads:
vi vs emacs
"Internet Time"
GNOME vs KDE
RMS vs ESR
Jon Katz bashing (he's meant to be insightful, not a God)
most recent joke: Raster vs Red Hat
Face it, Red Hat bashing is a fad. It probably started as meaningful insights from prominent members of the community intended to fix what was broken and improve the not-quite-perfect, but now the sentiments have degraded to the stuff flames are made of.
I'd rather spend my time writing code than spewing out meaningless, energy-wasting flame. I'd like to see most of ya'll doing the same.
Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:2)
Who do you blame here? If the programmers who wrote Codewarrior felt the need to target a specific distribution, that means that there must be a difference in distributions that one release could not address. If that's the case, then let's distribute the blame evenly, not just at RedHat's door.
But somehow, I feel that there is not such a substantial difference. I believe that the issue here is that a distribution had to be selected to test against and RedHat won out by virtue of its popularity and large installation base. Nothing sinister, here!
Re:Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:2)
Ooof. I'm not the person to whom you responded, but I think I'll reply anyway.
I work (read: for money) in the computer field. That doesn't mean that money is all I care about, and it doesn't mean that I don't like my job. It means that I have a wife (and someday, I hope, kids) to support, and that I can't just sit around doing things I enjoy all day if I'm not going to get paid. If I don't get paid, I don't eat.
A lot of technical people I know - myself included - frequently find themselves being taken advantage of because they object less to putting in extra hours. It occurred to me a few weeks back that it wasn't fair for me to have to put in 50+ hours a week (which is about what I was doing) when company policy precluded me from being paid for more than 37.5.
This is something of a rambling message, I know. The upshot is: we're lucky enough to work in a field that we really like. That doesn't mean that we can afford to let others take advantage of us by taking on too much work.
Red Hat and Commercialism (Score:3)
Red Hat SuSE (Score:2)
Here in Germany it's SuSE, not Red Hat.
Don't know why, perhaps every distribution that dominates a market (SuSE in Germany, Red Hat in the US) is suspected to do something evil.
Red Hat and SuSE both want to earn money, but both give the Open Source Community something back(e.g. the SuSE X-Server or Red Hat and Gnome). Both sides gain something.
Here in Germany I tell friends who want to try Linux to start with SuSE (better ISDN Support and the german language), but personally I don't like it so much and use Debian.
Just my opinion,
KeefR
Re:immaturity of the RH 6.0 release (Score:2)
Truth be told, I've found RH6.0 to be the most stable release of RH that I've used to date. And by this I mean that I consider it very stable, although I have a cache of my own update rpms nearby that I add immediately to all new installs.
Despite the bad reputation Red Hat is acquiring within the community, their distro
I think many people forget, in their eagerness to criticize anyone making a profit, that the concept of open source software is more widely accepted now than at any previous moment in history, and that Red Hat is actively gaining us even more mindshare through their commercially viable distribution. They are a business, yes, and like all businesses their ultimate goal is to make money. But we as a community have much to gain from being cautiously optimistic about Red Hat's role in the grand scheme.
Re:The 'Mouth' Speaks... (Score:3)
It makes sense to mention KDE because his whole point is that RedHat stood up for free software by refusing to include KDE while there were serious issues with its license. It is clear that this is no longer an issue; his last paragraph in this section says so clearly. It is only relevant to his article because it represents RedHat's stance on free software in the past, which is important to evaluate RedHat's stance on free software in the present.
About Netscape, BRU, and RealVideo: these are very different from KDE. They are not core system components. RedHat is not against commercial software being used on Linux; after all, they used to sell Applixware, they are making deals with commercial distributors, and they still include an "Applications CD" with the $80 RedHat 6.0 that includes many commercial apps.
The difference is that you can have as many commercial apps on top of the OS, and that's not a problem. The real problem is if any core component of Linux is not free... then it becomes possible for an external entity to take control or subvert Linux in some way.
Again, this is apparently no longer an issue with KDE, but the point is that KDE is fundamentally different from typical applications, which is why it's not hypocritical or wrong in any way of RedHat to have discriminated against a non-free KDE/Qt while being kosher with other commercial apps. Yes, we all understand that from a very technical standpoint, KDE, GNOME and the window manager (even X) can be considered to be just other applications on top of the kernel. But they are critical enough to the overall use of the system that they can be considered a more integral part of Linux as a whole than Netscape or other "standard" apps.
----------
Will it all be GPL? (Score:2)
Nah, I take that back. (Score:2)
What a stupid essay (Score:2)
Just my opinion.
-David
RH-only *users* are my problem (Score:2)
- The notion that everyone runs Red Hat, or that everyone has rpm (or knows where to get rpm, or what rpm will do to his system, or what installing random upgrades from some other distro will do to his system) is false and annoying.
- The notion that you fix problems by slapping in one upgrade after another until something works is both dangerous and esthetically offensive. I want to understand the problem and fix it, not just throw a rug over it. "Run the wizard and be happy" is the MS way, not my way.
Whatever you want to make of it, the fact is that RH has garnered a large share of the distro market. Whenever that happens, some people will just give up thinking and assume that vendor=market. I hope that RH does nothing to foster this view, but some will take it anyway and that is what bugs me.Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:3)
One of the services ISVs such as Red Hat provide is quality assurance. When you purchase a production distribution, you expect to have some assurance that all of the packages provided at least play well together. As anyone who has tried to upgrade software packages can well understand, getting all the dependencies to work well can be non-trivial. Since no two distributions have the same versions of all the packages, and as most software, commercial or non, relies on multiple packages, one can well imagine the benefits of targeting only one distribution, if you are involved in non-bazaar-style development, and especially if you are are developing closed, binary only software. Targetting multiple distributions causes at least a linear increase in QA and support effort, and the increase can be exponential (imagine 2 or 3 tier client/server products, where client 1 + server 1 may test differently from client 1 + server 2, etc.)
If you have to choose one distribution, you choose the most popular.... The "supports Red Hat" line is generally an indication that it was only tested on Red Hat, and that the support and maintenance staff only have Red Hat installed to reproduce reported bugs, and the like.
Re:Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:2)
> building up. Programmers who work insane hours week after week are simply helping their
> employer get away with not hiring the true number of people required to do the work
> assigned.
Or.. gasp!
they (okay, *we*) really enjoy coding for its own sake.
Sure, I could make tons more money (like: double my salary) if I wanted to get paid by the hour.
If I wanted to let someone else tell me what to code. Most people make a (possibly unconcious)
minimax calculation involving $$ income, freedom of what to work on, creative input, and how fast
the computers will be (I probably would not be using Sun Ultra Enterprise E4000 servers if I
worked for a 6-person startup).
If you are writing software in exchange for money but don't totally love what you're doing: duh,
find a new job, one you *do* love.
I'd be working at least 60 hours a week even if I won $100 million in the lottery tomorrow. Granted,
I might or might not work for a salary at that point. But I *would* be doing what I love.
Programming. Software Engineering. Designing. And if it happens to be the case that an already- existing company is working on what I am most interested in working on -- I'm there!
Re:The 'Mouth' Speaks... (Score:3)
The desktop is a more central component of the system, whereas user applications like netscape just perform a task. People don't write applications based on netscape, but they do write apps based on the desktop.
I think Red Hat had a legit concern that if people wrote free software based on QT (the old non free QT at least), then the software wouldn't really be free because it would be based on code not freely available.
I think from this perspective it makes sense for Red Hat to take the stance they did.
Re:Confessions of a Properietary Coder (Score:3)
I, as well, am a proprietary code writer. Even more so, I write proprietary code for Linux systems. Considering that our business is based on a proprietary value added to Linux, we can't give it away -- and no, the popular Open Source business models don't work for us.
If we could find a way to give all of our code away and still make money, we'd certainly do it. Unfortunately, doing that right now is the equivalent of suicide.
Big businesses opening their proprietary-ware makes sense, because they have other products and a reputation to ask money for. Small companies don't have that luxury, unfortunately.
Money doesn't make the world go around. Money is just the tool that makes it possible -- it's the lowest common denominator between the civilizations on this planet that allows people to exchange goods and services, without which the world *would* come to a grinding halt.
Re:On "RedHat Only" support... (Score:5)
The important thing, IMO, about this response is that it doesn't indicate Red Hat only compatibility, but rather Red Hat only support, which is a vastly different thing. It makes perfect sense to me that a company like Metrowerks would want to explicitly limit the environment they have to support. At the same time, it seems to me that if Red Hat wanted to do something nasty (a la Microsoft) they would have asked for Redhat only compatibility.
In the end, I think that Red Hat is just a little company that's trying to do the right thing. So far they haven't done anything to be upset about, not that I've seen anyway. In fact, their only sin seems to have been success, and if we (as a community) don't get past the success == sin idea then we're doomed to destroy ourselvs.
Like the article said: Red Hat has given a lot back. Let's not lose sight of that just because a witch hunt is exciting.
--
YOU'RE ALL SPOILED BRATS (Score:2)
So they want to make some money with special deals and CDs? Is that a crime? Once most of you college grads get out there and start getting bills for your loans, making money is going to be a motivation that dogs you night and day. I say kudos to Red Hat for figuring out how to make a buck from all of this.
Re:Why I don't bash RedHat... (Score:2)
RH, as a company, are bringing a lot of good to the Linux world, three examples of which are noted above. Their distribution is unencumbered by licensing exceptions -- we can all go make our own distributions based on RH.
I think all this RH bashing boils down mostly to vague concerns, paranoia, and, in some cases, maybe even a little resentment, about Red Hat's phenomenal success.
I challenge those of you who are so critical of RH to describe a business plan that would allow a company to bring as much good to the Linux world as RH while remaining pure to your ideals. Please show your work, including a practical definition of your ideals. If you feel no such plan is possible, just check the conscientious objector/socialist box.
My $0.02 (Score:2)
I've also noticed something of a trend among some RH bashers - they are Debian users. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a religious war here, I'm just saying that many of my friends who use Debian feel the need to bash RH simply out of spite.
I have three friends who avidly use Debian either at home or at work. Every time I talk to them about the latest Linux news, one of them has to ask, "You still using that piece of junk RedHat." To that I reply, "Yeah... of course." And I'm not afraid to admit it. I just want to know why it is that more often than not (in my experience) do Debian users feel the need to constantly put RedHat down? It doesn't make sense that the Linux community should fight over such things.
Debian is a great distribution - but so is RedHat.
I also have a few friends who use other distros such as Slack, and Caldera. They don't bash RH. In fact, they are quite happy with their distro and thats where it ends.
The great thing about all these distros is that we have the freedom to choose. Thats a great thing. We should revel in it - not fight about it.
To that I would like to add that I'm sick of hearing about vi vs. emacs, gnome vs. kde, etc, etc... its all a waste of time. Pick what you like and support it - believe in it - contribute to the development - but please, for god's sake, stop the pointless bickering over which distro is better than another!
The Linux community has the last word on what stays and what goes. If we don't like it, if it violates our philosophy, if it goes against our beliefs, we don't have to support it. Just like we don't support M$ or the closed source software community.
Disclaimer: Please don't construde this response to mean that I hate Debian, Slackware, or any other distro - I don't. I love them all and I wish each of you the best of luck with whatever choice you have made. Just stop the arguing - please.
Mark
RedHat bashing (Score:2)
Spencer