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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

New Macmillan Linux distro 174

Posted by CmdrTaco from the everybody's-doin'-it dept.
Jim Dabell writes "Macmillan have announced they are releasing "The Complete Linux(TM) Operating System 6.0" based on Mandrake. There are also deluxe and secure server options. " Why not. Everybody else seems to be creating their own distribution. Its fun.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Macmillan Linux distro More

New Macmillan Linux distro

Comments Filter:
  • Sesame street? Hm, I thought it was a young michael jackson...

    p.s. I have no idea why this post defaulted to a score of two.
  • Glad you warned me to expect much, else I might have not been able to have my expectations disappointed..
  • Right, that's completely understandable. I like RedHat, and they haven't been distributing un-free stuff lately (or I might just not be buying it, I got my RedHat 6.0 CD from CheapBytes... :) AFAIK.

    No hard feelings, (I didn't have an extra $20,000 a year, so I figured I could save the money and go to State) I actually know some very nice people who are trapped at Duke... :)
  • Um, I've been using Windows on and off for years and the only time it 'organizes functions such as Games, Internet, etc. into groups' is when I do it myself.
  • but I'm gonna say it anyway.
    I believe the original went "If you can't go to college, go to Campbell" and didn't mention MooU at all. Oh well, you can always tell a dookie (but not much).

  • Bet you can only install that piece of commercial crap on one computer.

    Back to the old "non-free non-opensource is crap" argument eh? Guess I chose the wrong profession.

    In any case, how often do you need to use Partition Magic? The ONLY thing I've used it for is a cleaner, GUI version of FIPS. Which means you could install it, partition, uninstall it, install on your friend's machine, etc.

    And as an aside, I don't think Partition Magic is Windows software... I'm pretty sure it drops down to Dos, and will run in Dos 5.0 or above.
  • Did that RH you saw by any chance have "Red Hat" and "Linux" in big letters and "McMillan Digital Publishing" in little bitty letters on the box? The McMillan name (long and well known among the dead tree crowd) probably got Red Hat Linux box sets into a lot of stores that wouldn't have given RH the time of day (and then those boxes suckered a lot of people who thought they were buying a Red Hat package with Red Hat support because they didn't know there could be non-RH versions of RH).

  • You're a winey MCP employee, right ?

    This is TOO easy, but here goes:

    Why don't you check out their website for their product catalog.

    ---I have, many times. No argument here. SAMS. QUE. New Riders.

    Find that they mirror the LDP on their servers ...

    ---Note this is not an earth-shattering accomplishment, but okay, so they have an interest (no doubt a monetary one).

    Find that they recently are putting out a Quake product for Linux.

    ---"THEY" being Macmillan Digital ?? You mean THEY wrote it, or THEY knew this is indeed a hot software item, and THEY have the clout to plublish it ...

    Check out the fact that they have Linux-related e-books online for FREE at pbs.mcp.com...

    ---... but are HOW OLD?? Hey, I'm the FIRST to admit, RIGHT NOW is THE time to build your home libraries with UNIX/LINUX books (a few '95 books are VERY useful); but AGAIN, does this REALLY give Macmillan bragging rights?

    I'm not gonna embaress[SP?] anyone here, but $0.25 says I know who posted this "Get the facts" message BY NAME ....

    "Get the FACTS" ?? Get the pertinent facts, elsewhere, apparently ....

  • A pointer to an ftp server doesn't cut it, because they are not offering to
    "give to any third party , for a charge of no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code,"

    On the contrary, linking to someone elses ftp site would be to nominate another party to distribute the source code in a means that greatly inconveniences the party wishing to examine the code.

    Cheapbytes comply by offering CDs containing the source code for $2- ( eg this is strict compliance with the terms of the license ). OTOH, LSL do not appear to do this.

  • GPL permits free redistribution. Perhaps you're referring to something like the BSD license, which allows companies to make their work proprietary and not release the changes back to the community.

    This model is much more suspceptible to code forks, since companies don't have to redistribute changes and they can build proprietary additions and resell those.

    That's really why I like the GPL. It makes it impossible to stop sharing the code once you've started doing it. If a license is GPL, I know that I'm not inadvertedly helping some company in the future that doesn't share the code with everyone in return. At the very least, if they use my code for free, then I expect them to contribute code that I can use for free in my projects.

    I don't care if they make money, but I hate the idea of taking and never giving back.
  • Don't forget it would always have the absolute latest kernel builds.
  • >I keep hearing that a BSD license is BAD because it allows for 'code forking'.
    > Now having 32 different flavors of GNU/Linux is a GOOD thing?

    Having multiple vendors isn't the same thing as a code fork. Multiple vendors is a *good* thing. Imagine if you could only buy a TV from one company? Now, if every electronics company used a different video format, that would be a bad thing (and be like a code fork).

    I am glad to see competition in the distro market. It is the best way to get nicer installation tools (as we've seen with Caldera's distro).

    --
  • | I would really like to see someone accuse the
    | BSD community of fragmentation. How many Linux
    | distributions are there this week?

    No BSD flamewars for me, thanks. You've got to think, though, about how many distributions there *really* are.

    This MacMillan thing is basically a rehash of Mandrake, which is basically a rehash of Red Hat. So it's not really different. Heck, even Corel's basically Debian with their stuff added.

    If you want a Linux with less distributions to worry about, though, simply come on over to the Alpha, PPC, or Sparc. :)
  • Complete code forking (aka when two branches form, they never converge again, and they become increasingly incompatable) is not an issue of the BSD license. It is a result of the BSD culture. Mind you, I consider there to be far worse things in the world than forking.

    Furthermore, there has been only one fork in linux systems in recent memory, the libc5 vs. glibc debate, and that will end at some point (hopefully soon). The kernel has not forked. I run a system that only marginally resembles it's original distribution (a ditrib named Nomad written by a couple of guys who lived in the same dorm as me). A lot of the system has gotten changed sine the Nomad install. You know what though, I can still run damn near every package out of Slackware, Redhat, SuSE, ect. That's not forking in my opinion.
  • Hmm... that's a pretty good idea, except for one thing: a lot of "us"[1] care, but most others don't, and RedHat can't survive just on our business.

    What leverage can we use, then? I suppose Linus (by controlling the Linux trademark) could have some influence, perhaps denying the use of the name to those who don't meet your criteria, or... I dunno. I like the GPL, but I don't think RMS ever anticipated that there would be GPL based companies that might have legitimate reasons to need the leverage that the GPL intentionally removes. Argh... GPL 2.0 anyone?:)
    ~luge


    [1]read: /. readers who remember TCWWW(tm) :)
  • Distribution != system.

    Give me any package from any distribution and I'll get it working on any other distribution in an hour or so, tops.

    Furthermore, distributions package the code. They don't write the code. The code is the same accross all distribs, they just are package a bit different.

  • Announcement: Mom's Linux (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    June 17, Toledo, OH:

    In a suprise annoucement today my Mother laid out plans to introduce her own distibution of Linux, which will be be derived from the Debian destribution and called, "Mom's Linux". When pressed for details on how this new distribution will differentiate itself, she replied, "It's made with a mother's love." My father, who is also working on his own distribution, could not be reached for comment.

  • I hear MacMillian is now going public and planning a hostile takeover of RedHat...


    {Churn out newer versions! So we may slap our name across it you silly, silly bastards}


    I now apologize for my evil twin. Frustration is setting in from my latest RedHat install on a SparcIPC. I must return... fly Fatass! FLY!
  • This is a known property of using the GPL for your software. You are not guarrantied that if someone uses it, they will necessarily pay you money for it. Certainly if they want you to write more software of a style they want, they had better be prepared to front some cash...

    On the good side, MacMillan is not the only company who can do this.. if their prices provide a good profit margin, someone will undercut them as well... All this will be grossly unsupported.. but hey... :-)
    amazonlinux.com :-)
  • You are wrong. Or listening to the wrong persons.

    Regarding code forking, both the GPL and the BSD-like licenses allow it. There is no difference between both. Except when it comes to creating a propietary (not free) version based in the free software. The BSD allows anyone to grab their source, modify it and release a propietary version. That will never happen with GPL products, because the GPL required you to distribute software based on the original software under the same license terms that software was licensed to you.

    All the 32 (only 32? I bet there are far more distributions) GNU/Linux versions are free software, none of them is propietary, all are still free software. This does not happen with BSD. Both can be forked, but BSD can be forked and turned to propietary, as has happened many times in the past.

    Some persons prefer BSD licenses and say they are more permisive than the GPL. Others (including me) prefer to use the GPL since it means any software based in the one we are creating will be given back to us under the same terms we gave ours.

    Alejo.
  • More distros.. Talking about distros, if anyone wants to help on the Slashmeat distro, give me a buzz at cisco-kid@cybermail.net or icq me at 1763538
    The webpage is at http://members.xoom.com/slashmeat But expect much...
    I ate my tag line.
  • ...that you saw a single application cause a kernel panic (I haven't)? When was the last time you saw NT do the same (NT did to me today)? When was the last time you were forced to reboot a Linux system in order to install software?

    I don't think you quite get the point. The point about NT is not that the apps are unstable. Anybody can produce unstable apps for any OS. The point is that the OS is unstable. A standard unprivileged app should not be able to take the entire freakin' system down with it.

    Now, as for success (the market-share kind), you are correct that quality is not the only factor at work here. I would suggest that it is also not currently a major factor at work. The fact is that the capitalist system has encouraged a dangerous cycle. The capitalist system relies on a _perception_ of quality or a _perception_ of value. Unfortunately, too many people have been duped into believing that market success means high value, and get sucked into a massive vortex ocf self propagating circular logic... (Product A has much market share, it must be good, person buys product A, increasing its market share more...)

    We need to break this cycle. We need to ensure that the perception of value comes not from within this vortex, but rather from objective measures of value that have little to do with capitalist theory.

  • re: Linux Distributions (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Oh, give me a break. Linux gains a little bit of main-stream attention, and now everybody and their brother wants a piece of the pie. Somehow I doubt that these Johnny-come-latelies are really into the whole "Open Source" scene, so I doubt we'll be seeing much cooperation between them and the more "traditional" Linux development community. Maybe they'll go the same Route RedHat has opted to, and start brokering deals in which software will be developed only for their platform.

    Who knows, but what a horrid way to start the day ;)

  • MEEPT!!! (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 18, 1999 @03:01AM (#1844963)
    MEEPT!!!

    (sung to the tune of Sesame Street's "ABC, easy as 1, 2, 3")

    *Lets make a NEW dist-ro!*
    *Easy as 1 - 2- 3*
    *Tocon-fuse ev-ery bo-dy!*
    *MS will just LOVE me!*

    MEEPT humbly submits his art to the dapslash community for approval by its socialist leaders.

    MEEPT!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • I've seen these too, and I wondered... what's up with putting "Red Hat" on the box? Is this a partnership with Red Hat? Seems that you couldn't call it "Red Hat" without their blessing... and maybe some cash flow?

  • /. Linux (Score:3)

    by mtm ( 10808 ) on Friday June 18, 1999 @03:02AM (#1844965)
    Why not, indeed! How about "/. Linux, OS for Nerds". It could come preconfigured with an "anonymous_coward" user account, Beowulf clustering, moderated package installer (eg. fortune: (4, funny)), etc.

    Mike
  • I can't seem to find a download-link? I thought that every distribution had to be downloadable? Every other dist I've seen or heard about is, AFAIK.

    Someone enlighten me, please


  • Pitiful... (Score:1)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    What the hell is an 'operating system publisher', because these guys claim to be the third largest, behind Microsoft and Apple...

    This looks interesting, but remember, I can buy Redhat 6.0 (and many other complete linux distributions) for a few bucks from CheapBytes. Why? Because they don't have anything proprietary in them, apparently unlike this distro. I know that Partition Magic has some funky licensing on it, and I bet their Apache/RSA Secure Webserver isn't much better...

    Nope, RedHat learned the error of their ways and went completely Open Source, but I doubt these guys ever will.
  • By the time I am finished with this comment ..someone must be making a distribution based on MacMillan !! Instead of dishing out countless distributions, why can't these people think of some original idea. Afterall what we get is the same packages ..in some sort of packaging format. How about helping people who are already into making distributions and helping them in porting to different platforms.

  • Oh, OK- matter of clarification, then. RedHat distributes a LOT of non-GPL stuff, but they don't write any (except two hardware drivers, IIRC, which the sponsors eventually made open as a result of RedHat persuasion.) Everything they write is GPL, unlike, say, Suse's YAST. Since, AFAIK, they still haven't "seen the light" about distributing non-GPL stuff, I assume you meant stuff they had written. No hard feelings (except the generic "If you can't go to college, go to jail, if you can't go to jail, go to State!" :)
    ~luge
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I agree. This has been discussed a few times before, but I sincerely doubt that Red Hat is going out and making backroom Micro$oftian exclusive deals with commercial software companies. More likely, Metrowerks looked around, saw that Red Hat was the leading distro today, and decided that in order to minimize effort and maximize customers, they would "officially" support Red Hat. As the prior poster stated, it's likely that this will run just fine on other distros, especially those coming into line with the LSB.
  • Er, clarification:

    You do NOT have to distribute your source changes if you keep your "personal" distribution in-house and don't distribute it (include it in a larger work, etc).

    Any company can make "enhancements" to GPL'd software and not share them with anyone as long as they only use it for internal systems.

    This is not in the spirit of the GPL, but according to rms it is in the letter of the "law."
  • First people complain that Red Hat is going to destroy the Linux movement because some companies have chosen to only support Red Hat, which may wipe out some other distributions.

    Then people curse the fact that another company has chosen to support a new Linux distro.

    Then people get mad because the new distro may be based on Red Hat.

    You can't have your cake and eat it, too ... Linux has to keep diversity or the whole point is moot. You have to start somewhere, so they chose Red Hat, so what? If you don't like it, don't use it, but at least it's keeping a resemblance of diversity.

  • The economic argument that 'competition is good' is null/void because you can get the code for free.

    There are other ways to compete than `see who can make the most money'--`see who can get the most users' is another one, and `see who can write the best software' is one more.
  • GPL was written so that an author could provide "freedom" which ment that the work could be freely *modified*. While even the BSD license does allow for this degree of freedom, the RedHat *documentation* on the GPL and BSD packages have no degree of modifiablity provided. If you don't believe me, feel free to pick up a RedHat 6.0 CD and take a look at the RPM Howto:

    "This document and its contents are copyright protected. Redistribution of this document is permitted as long as the content remains completely intact and unchanged. In other words, you may reformat and reprint or redistribute only."

    While the RPM package itself is modifable, the documentation MUST be complettely rewritten as an independant work so that the documentation can provide information that reflects the latest changes/version.

    I have talked with members of my local LUG about this issue. I had discovered some fellow members who have also made patches which found their way into the offical RedHat distribution. Also, with each of the resulting derivative works, RedHat took advantage of the licensing conditions of the GPL and published binaries which resulted from their modifications. However, while RedHat was free to modify our work, we each had come to relize that RedHat does not extend the same licensing considitions back for their documentation. As a result, we are forced to email Donnie Barnes to request modifications but for every member of my local LUG that contacted Mr. Barnes, he declaired that he did not have time to update the documentation.

    Btw, the LUG is working to put together a petition to request that Greg Hankins remove "HOWTOs" like this which are under more restrictive licensing terms than that of the LDP license [unc.edu]. It is our feeling that it compromises the reliabilty of the LDP when any one person or company controls certain LDP content. This also becomes a legal trap just waiting to be sprung. At any point, someone may attempt to assist in maintaining LDP documentation without take care to notice that some LDP material is not under LDP license and may find themselves sued by RedHat as a result. It is the LUG's belief that ever step should be taken to *ENCOURAGE* modification/updates to LDP and that leaving the RPM HOWTO trap as part of the LDP can only serve to discourage this goal.

    It is also licensing issues like this which encourage forking of distributions. How can we truely trust a company like RedHat which sucks off of the work of the Linux community and then deploys the Donnie Barnes documentation license trap back upon that same community?

    I would also like to applaud Macmillan for their steps to fork from RedHat. Since RedHat is getting so much commerical recognization right now (despite trying to snare the Linux community with it's licensing considitions), the easy thing for Macmillan to have done is to try to associate itself with RedHat as best it could. Instead, it appears that Macmillan (a publisher, anotherwords, documentation company) clearly saw that RedHat wasn't worth publishing on until they could correct what they publish. Hopefully, after Macmillan takes the time to rewrite documentation from the ground up, they make sure to screw RH over with licensing conditions the same way the Donnie Barnes' attack was used on the Linux community.


  • Personally, I have started using FreeBSD as of late, I got sick of trying to find the "right" package out of 100 diffrent packages for the same application, or tracking libraries to insure the new verson of X will run, but not break the old version of Y. I have less and less time to do that stuff anymore (approching graduation), maybe some day when I have more time, I'll go back towards Linux installs.


    Hate to push another distribution yet again, but this is why I use Debian. I admit dselect is a pain in the ass, but apt-get is a godsend.

    I don't need to track down library X from package Y to install package Z 75 times just to install an application. Debian Potato (the current development release) is a little bit behind the absolute latest and greatest apps (from a few days to a few weeks), but it has thousands of applications (just about everything I was interested in). Doing an apt-get update ; apt-get dist-upgrade keeps me completely up to date. If I don't want to be bleeding edge, I can edit the sources file to switch it to whatever CD I have or to the stable distribution on the net.

    If I just want to install an application, all I need to do is apt-get install package, and it automatically fetches any dependencies, upgrades any packages that depend on it, installs them, and lets me go on my way. Once you've used it once, you'll never want to go back. Heck, you can use it to install packages that are part of potato even if you're using the older releases. It works like a charm.

    I _like_ the FreeBSD ports system, but the Debian system completely fits the bill and it cuts down on the amount of time I waste administering and setting up servers.

    Those people that think Debian is for those that are completely paranoid about using GPL and completely Free software, it's not. Packages are just labeled non-free if they do not meet the DFSG.

    Admittedly, Debian is a little harder to install than Red Hat and dselect is a pain. Maybe Corel's Linux distribution will make it easier for the average user.
  • Posted by Mojoski:

    I was in CompUSA yesterday and was going to buy a copy of RedHat 6.0 but it was sold out. I saw the above mentioned distro and picked it up to check it out. To my pleasant suprise it actually comes with a copy of Partition Magic so I can easily indoctinate my windows friends with a quick repartition and install. I am looking forward to trying it out.

  • As a public company, I doubt RedHat is planning to survive on donations. Furthermore, they know that someone can/has/will undercut them on distribution and retail support, but having a GPL installer is one of the reasons they're the biggest guy on the block, so it's doubtful that they'll change that route.

    Of course, I'd have no idea what RedHat's business plan is. (Wouldn't I like to though!) I would imagine they're thinking the real money in enterprise support contracts, contract programming (like Linux/Merced for Intel), and integration services for hardware companies, and so on. This is all vaild of course - just because Microsoft makes much of its money on shrinkwrapped retail doesn't mean that there's not other ways.
    --
  • "experimental" ??

    It's 1.0. That means it's officially released, non-beta, supposedly stable, right?

    so why is my hard drive littered with CORE files?

    I like Gnome alot. But I will continue to use KDE until Gnome gets a little more reliable. (which I hope is soon)

    Isn't the point of Linux that it DOESN'T crash?

    -geekd
  • First, I find it laughable that this would come from 'Anonymous Coward'. Aren't people willing to sign their own names any more? Also, it's "Red Hat", not "RedHat".

    That said, I don't believe in using the GPL on documentation no matter how free you want the documentation to be. The GPL is a software license and doesn't apply to documentation any more than the Declaration of Independence can pose as a restaurant menu.

    I find it ironic that someone would attack someone for a license such as that, and then encourage McMillan to go do the same thing. Makes no sense to me.

    But, back to the topic, the RPM-HOWTO. I'm currently looking for a new maintainer. Because I don't have the time to maintain it and because I do care, I'm willing to give it to someone who will do a good job with it. That person will be free to change the license on the version I give them to any license they wish, too (the only modification I'll make before giving it out would be to take my name off as the author).

    All the code I've written has been under the GPL. I'm one of the last people you could attack for being non GPL compliant.

    Anyway, if anyone wants to take over the RPM-HOWTO, send me mail. We may have already found someone, but send mail anyway if you're interested in case that doesn't work out.


    --Donnie
  • I would like to know what I would be missing in features from the 2 versions, and which one should I buy...... if they arent virtually identical.
  • Yay, The Glorious MEEPT!! is back! *cheers*

    Now if only /. would give him his account back. *grumble*grumble*
  • It would also have to crash at least once a week.
  • It is wrong for a developer to force me to do that if I use their code.

    That is the second most absurd thing I've heard today. (You don't want to know the first.)

    If you use my code you play by my rules. Don't like the rules? Don't use the code. How is it wrong for a developer to set certain conditions (insuring freedom for the user) on use of their own code?

    Some developers (including myself) actually like the GPL and use it as our liscense of choice. If don't like the GPL, then don't use our code! Develop your own damn code.

    BSD liscense is fine for some people. Use it on your own code if you like. I personally don't like it because I like software to remain Libre in all cases. But you have no right to dictate the terms of usage for the code that I write.

    This statement you made really fumes me and indicates you have a total lack of understanding about the whole Libre Software thing. So just go away before I taunt you a second time.

  • Yes.

    It's called the Redhat Linux Installation Program.

    And it's GPLed.. with source.
  • Have you ever read the GPL? The GPL does not permit free redistribution. It forces redistribution.

  • Me too! (Score:1)

    by pqbon ( 7033 )
    This is NOT good! I'm very surprized and kind of disapointed.

    I especially like the part about in the spirit of Open Source they are going to keep the price down. They just don't get it. My poor operating system. It's enough to make you cry!

    The biggest problem I see is MacMillion will use its distribution channells and contracts to "box out" other distributions. Making buying other distros at a store impossiable.

    Also, Isn't this about as bad as can be for RedHat?


    "There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
    "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
  • According to a friend of mine who works at RedHat, MacMillan hasn't been providing any support for their previous versions of RedHat distributions. When he determines that a user has the MacMillan version of RedHat and tells the user to call MacMillan for tech support, the user invariably tells my friend that MacMillan told him to call RedHat with his problems.

    I wouldn't bet on getting any more tech support from MacMillan than they currently offer -- unless you are willing to fork out some additional $$$ beyond the cost of the shrink-wrapped box. Even then, I'd bet that they'll pass you along to RedHat or Mandrake for any problem beyond the installation.

    I've also heard that RedHat and MacMillan are currently involved in some litigation over the use of the RedHat name and trademarks. This might explain why MacMillan switched to Mandrake.

  • Oh look, no mention of RedHat in the thread yet and already the bashing starts.

    Linux gains a little bit of main-stream attention, and now everybody and their brother wants a piece of the pie

    Get real these "Johnny-come-latelies" have been publishing Linux books forever, I appluad them for deciding to make their own distro. The more distros we have the harder it would be for RH to turn into the MS monster that people seem to think it will.

    Maybe they'll go the same Route RedHat has opted to, and start brokering deals in which software will be developed only for their platform.

    You can take your foot out of your mouth now, I'm sure the shoe leather tastes bad. RH did not broker any deals, they happen to be the leading distro right now and as companies try to penetrate the Linux market they are using the same methods they used in other markets. Software certification is nothing new, and if they only want to test on one distro then thats their right, Code Warrior is open source, you don't like the RH brand on it, d/l it and make a Debian release of it, or a Slackware release. The problem you percieve does not exist, get over it.

  • Why go with the flow when you can go all over

    Well you can "go all over", but it's one hell of a lot of largely unneccessary work, and you have to be prepared to do most of the work yourself until you have a product. Other volunteer projects (don't wish to name anyone) failed because there was no-one good enough to get the ball rolling. My experience is that it's almost impossible to draw any interest until you have a working product ( distribution ), and most of the interest you draw will come from newbies (since they are your target audience), not programmers.

    Anyway, good luck to you (-; you're welcome to drop me an email when your distribution's ready (ie beta release), so I can bug you about including my programs (-;

  • I anxiously await the "Hostess Frosted Linux 6.0" from Interstate Brands. This distro will strongly differentiate itself from the field with such value-adds as the "Creamy Filling Subsystem"...

    J. Mimpton Cleeb III [2trak.com]

  • It is an arrangement with Red Hat. The 5.2 box set comes with a book that's the Red Hat book with a couple of extra pages added on the front by McMillan and in the RH part of the book they(RH)say that they partner with other companies to physically distribute their product(and that you should contact that other company for support). As I indicated in my previous post, this is probably to get the product into places they couldn't otherwise,such as bookstores and office supply stores, places that would know and trust the McMillan Publishing brand.
    My only gripe is how the package seems to be designed to make buyers think that they are getting the actual "supported by Red Hat" version of Red Hat's version of Linux.

  • so why is my hard drive littered with CORE files?

    Because you don't have your environment set to limit coredumpsize=0 perhaps?

  • Re:6.0? (Score:1)

    by pqbon ( 7033 )
    It's marketing, baby... all markteting!

    They don't want to apear as version 1.0 when mandrake and RH are at version 6.0.


    "There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
    "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
  • As soon as someone buys this distro, they can post it to the net (aside from those windowy partition programs maybe) and we can all download it.
  • I've seen the Distro, at least the basic one.
    Comes with Partition Magic, and two MacMillan Linux books on CD, for 25.95 at Costco Club (your price may vary). For two books, a printed install guide, a limited edition of PM, and a distro, it's a reasonable price for a value-added package.

  • At that point, isn't it just Mandrake?
    ~luge

  • Re:One more reason to care... or not... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have ran Debian... I still have it on one of my systems. I have ran Slackware, SuSE, Debian, Caldera, and a couple others I believe. Oh, and Red Hat. Sorry, but dselect sucks completely, totally, and makes basic installs a nightmear. It's a fact. I don't want to start a distribution war, I am just saying FreeBSD is for me, right now, the best, and this is part of the reason why.

    I am SICK of hearing "oh, you should just try Distribution X" (and it usually comes from Debian people most). Face it, they are all equally screwed up, just in diffrent places. Debian, go install, and get running, safely, and relyably, with minimum hassle? Not even, it's not even a 2.2 kernel as of last time I checked for default install.

    cvsup, ports, packages, make world, all make completely automating keeping my system up and stable and up to date much more easy for me, that's why I am going with FreeBSD now. (well, that and I like BSD comming from a IRIX background, it's a little easier to understand than SysV for me).

    So, your post, more or less, is one of the things I am happy to be getting away from... The kernel of the week syndrome, the "oh, X distbution sucks, that's why you should run Y, and then you'll see Linux is good" thing, all that stuff is something I just don't even want to think about anymore... Time for me to get a life and just USE the system, not waste countless hours configuring it... (well, at least till I get out of school, and get a regular job, and have some more time on my hands... Speaking of which, I gotta get buzy here).

    BadlandZ (not logged in, sitting at a Mac, waiting for a print job...)

  • Being a long time RedHat user, I grew very, very disgusted with it. my first distro was Slackware, then I moved to RedHat 3.0, then 4.0, 4.2, 5.0, and then 5.2.

    I just bought S.u.S.E. 6.1, and it kicks redhat's ass. No two ways about it.
  • ...although it would issue a warning saying that you don't have to run the latest developer kernel. 8-)
  • Okay. I accuse the BSD community of fragmentation. Of course, Linux, UNIX in general, Windows and the like are all fragmented too... but let's look at this:

    Windows: separate incompatible versions,
    as in a program written for one of these
    may not run on another of these without
    also writing it for that version:
    1-1.xx (dead)
    2-2.xx (dead)
    3.0 (dead)
    3.1, 3.11 (mostly dead...)
    4.0-4.1 ('95, '98) (not dead yet)
    NT 3-3.51 (whatever service packs)
    NT 4.0 (I don't know how compatible the service packs are)
    Windows 2000 (not released yet, who knows how compatible)
    Windows CE (& 2.0?) (Hopefully will die)

    ...there's probably more, a lot of this is legacy.
    Of course, Windows has more application incompatibilities than anything else...

    Linux: (this is vaguer, since this is just the kernel + whatever you add to it...)
    1.0 or less -- dead
    1.2-1.3 -- mostly dead, old libraries, old filesystem, old binary format, but mostly source compatible.
    2.0-2.1 -- alive, ELF, ext2, source compatible UNIX.
    2.2-2.3 -- new, still compatible except maybe GLIBC.

    Different distributions -- mostly compatible, four major packaging formats can all be converted, should all be source compatible (standard UNIX compatibility here) with many of the best cool UNIXy features implemented (/proc, VFS, MITSHM, DGA, etc.)

    UNIX:
    SYSV + BSD:
    many different UNIXes use one or both of these as a base, technically all of them today are either BSD or both, since BSD started the networking code, I think. :)
    FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MacOSX, HP/UX, IRIX, ULTRIX, DGUX, OSF/1, Tru64, AIX, SunOS, Solaris, SCO, XENIX etc. are all other UNIX variants that I believe derive from one or the other or both... Of course there are many more. These are mostly source-compatible, except for some hardware issues, like sound interfaces are often different, kernel features change, older programs have different options, SYSV and BSD have some different utilities and extensions...

    Linux supports POSIX, and a lot of SYSV and some BSD extensions, but this doesn't always help. (the nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!)

    With both Linux and the free BSD variants, of course you can always read or change the source if you want to, which may lead to fragmentation, but it's often better than not being able to change it when there's a problem, especially with an old version or a defunct vendor...

    Because of the BSD license, many people steal the BSD networking code, or TCP/IP stack, or something to use in their commercial OS... it's better to have that than having bad commercial products, of course...

    All in all it's a mess, but Linux has great source compatibility with UNIX and itself, and okay binary compatibility, with support libraries with the older stuff. It also supports a *lot* of new stuff (I like my gamepad and my TV card and my Paralell Port ZIP Drive and my cheap PC hardware...) and different platforms.

    The *BSD's, while I haven't used them, seem to also have good hardware support and lots of platforms supported, and this is much better than most of the commercial offerings which stick to one or two platforms and/or hardware configurations. Past that, I only know what I've heard from *BSD people, that once you know how to use it, generally that it makes a good server, has a central source for the tools, and I've seen the nifty kernel configuration thingy... YMMV.

    Past that, if anyone has useful additions or corrections, please post them too. :)
  • The beauty of the ability for anyone to make their
    own distribution is that eventually we will get
    distributions tailored to specific niche needs.
    This would allow more Linux penetration as well as
    provide easier setup/configuration and probably
    better trained technical support for people with
    specific computing needs.

    For example:

    With high-speed home internet access becoming
    much more available, I can see a great opportunity
    to get Linux into a large number of homes. Take
    that old PC you were going to replace and use it
    to run a home network! Share the bandwidth to
    all of your home's computers and maybe run some
    basic file and print sharing (Samba).

    The (fictitious) XYZ distribution is tailored
    especially for this purpose. The customer gets
    exactly what he/she needs and the XYZ's technical
    support is geared toward setting up home networks.
    If rival company ZYX produces a similar product,
    then competition brings prices down and service
    up!
  • Well considering the $80 that RedHat wants for the supported version, versus the $0 they'll charge you for the unsupported version, there's obviously lots of room here to undercut RedHat, and provide your own "support". This isn't inconsequential money either - RedHat's been one of the top selling retail software packages for a number of months.

    This is nothing new. There's a whole bunch of $40 Linux books which are just reprints of how-tos and so on.

    I think we're going to see a race to the bottom here, maybe even getting to the point where you'll get Linux in the mail with some offer like AOL CDs.


    --
  • 1. What kernel is Mom using?

    2. Where is Mom's FTP site (ftp.momslinux.com?)

    3. Is Mom completely under the GPL?

    4. Can I get support from Mom?

    5. Can I use Mom in a Beowulf cluster? (sorry -- if I didn't say it, someone else would)
  • My thoughts exactly (Truth be known: I use Mandrake from cheapbytes, but enough about me).

    It sorta reminds me of Bugs Bunny trying to do his copy of somebody's interpretation of somebody's impersonation of Elvis. (I am dating my self to all you kids out there.) Whenever Bugs would try to get a song started after explaining his planned interpretation, something else would happen. Seems he would take just too much time explaining what he was doing so he didn't have time to sing

    Concerning the Distr. in a Distr. in a Distr. of this product, I can only wonder how fast things would change. There are frequent changes to the Linux Kernel. Red Hat revs every few months. Mandrake lags Red Hat by a what?- a week? This Distr. would necessarily Lag Mandrake by probably another week?

    How many revs to the Kernal would be made in the time it takes to rev this Distr. Not that it truly matters to the people who buy this Distr.
  • but hey -- can you say all Linux apps are stable? Like Gnome?

    Gnome is experimental, NT is not. You should talk more about Pine, Sendmail, Apache, Samba, and the kernel. I know the benchmark results, do you?

    I was talking about servers anyway. I've found the Linux server apps to be quite stable, only the desktop ones are lacking in the field. How many businesses would use Gnome in its current state, anyway?
    --------

  • Okay, that's understandable. I never really had trouble with Debian once I got past the install headaches. Reconfiguration and installation of new applications is a snap. Debian is very sane in how it configures things by default, and I can get a new package working relatively quickly.

    The best thing about Linux is diversity. If there was a distribution that did things better than mine, I'd try it. It's still Linux. I'm sorry for offending you. :-)
  • Oh yeah, and are you saying WinNT isn't known for short uptimes? I don't think so.
    --------
  • Minor correction: CodeWarrior is not open source. The "Redhat" version does, however, run just fine on other distros.

    -Steve
  • I just installed RedHat 6.0 (on a partition separate from my main Debian system), and it does the same. Can you say "GNOME"?

    On another note, considering GNOME and KDE are almost exactly alike, why don't they merge the projects already (like when Qt 2.0 is released), and make everyone's lives easier?
    --------
  • I can somewhat understand why folks might put more restrictive licensing on documentation than code.

    Documentation is easier to screw up -- it doesn't have to pass the objective 'machine test' of whether it will compile and run. And there's an old saying among writers: there is no greater urge than to modify somebody else's prose. Lot's of folks consider themselves writers who aren't. Far fewer consider themselves programmers who aren't, because the computer has a way of slapping you in the face with reality.

    That said, however, I agree that there ought to be some way for folks other than the original copyright holder to add to/update documentation as the software changes. I suppose if nothing else the updates could be distributed as a 'patch' (sed script?) to the original, or as an errata sheet, although neither are very satisfactory. Especially after several generations of same.

  • It only forces redistribution if you're distributing the application at all. For example, if you are working on an in-house app that won't be distributed outside of your company, you don't have to do anything.

    The letter of the law allows you to keep your changes private (i.e. within the company). Now, on the other hand, if you're distributing your application outside of your company and someone asks for source code, you have to provide it to them.

  • I know this is sorta offtopic, but it's just so FUNNY!
    Anyone seen this HP commercial on CNN?:

    "A computer confronts failure.
    Failure attacks.
    An opposing force neutralizes failure,
    Reversing its energy,
    Rendering its intentions
    Useless....

    Running the 'unstoppable' Windows NT...

    HEWLETT-PACKARD
    BUSINESS PCS
    WON'T BE
    DEFEATED."

    Is it just me, or is WinNT known for short uptimes?
    --------
  • 1) You can buy a ~$40 RedHat CD from RedHat, which is basically a contribution to them- no support, but you help pay the RHAD people.

    2) Most people won't just buy one of those Linux books (I happen to own the very good Linux Unleashed, which came with RH- from MacMillan). They don't understand that documentation with software bundled works just as well as software with documentation bundled, so (for the most part) RedHat is not competing with them.

    3) The race to the bottom- that's the thing I've been searching for this whole time. Technically speaking, you could give RedHat away like AOL disks. But then where is the money going to come from to support the Labs and other things which have been very good for the community? I'm all for volunteerism, and think that that is the foundation everything else needs to be based on. But we have undeniably been helped by RedHat and VA- and they might lose out in the race towards virtually free Linux.
  • Why start your own project when there are already a number of already functional distributions that need developers ? ( for example, there's my pet prject http://independence.seul.org. There's also others ... )

  • What exactly will Macmillan be doing that is worth contributing back? All they're doing is bundling Mandrake with a version of Partition Magic and StarOffice. Have you forgotten about Caldera? These easier to install distros are great for spreading the gospel (I'm a Mandrake user myself).

    As for the distribution network, I've seen RH in Barnes and Noble as well as Best Buy - exactly the same type of stores as I'd expect to see this in.

    The money Mandrake receives from Macmillan (via a support contract) is probably going towards Lothar - which in turn will be released under the GPL. A fair exchange I think.
  • correction acknowledged, I was under the impression that the RH version would be open source
  • The number of distributions doesn't increase the fragmentation by itself. There are currently Redhat, some fully compatible variants , and Caldera/SuSE. The main incompatibilities are between RH, Caldera, and SuSE. This has more to do with SuSE ... "SuSifying" everything, and Redhat changing versions of glibc in some kind of mad haste ( as if they're in a race or something )
  • "Expirimental" 1.0 software. That's just wrong.

    GNOME has acheived some nice things, pushed the idea of pervasive corba (even if they haven't acheived it themselves). However, out of all the free software projects I've come accross, GNOME is perhaps the most offensive with its attitude of 1.0 expiriments, instability, flamage and FUD.

    GNOME should not be considered an idicator of a modern linux system, but rather an exception to the way things are and should be done.
  • I just about fell off my dinosour when I read Bennett saying that this [sic] "will maintain Macmillan's reputation as the leader in everything Linux."

    Does Bennett ever go online, anymore?

    At all ??

    Kinda like how some religious fanatics base all their beliefs on those little comic-book-like tracts (strangely enough, these folks would ALSO benefit from going online!!).





  • LSL are active violaters of the GPL. In an act of doublethink, they call their Redhat CD "Redhat GPL" even though this CD violates the GPL ( since they don't ship the source code. They might as well sell warez.

  • This is a first (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is hilarious, a rip-off of a rip-off of Red Hat .... it cannot get much better than this.

    J
  • These guys have been distributing Red Hat Linux (Special Macmillion Edition) for some time. In fact, that was the only Red Hat they have had at my local Fry's. Perhaps they feel that Mandrake is more suited to first time off-the-shelf buyers. At any rate, it always nice to see linux in big distribution channels... :)
  • I haven't seen a 'MEEPT' post in a long time. I hope someone moderates them up as long as they are AC posts.

    Here's where we need more options on slashdot: *I*want to personally view all posts that are (a) rated at 1 or above, and (b) all (original) MEEPT posts. (the replies aren't always that MEEPT-ingful, if you know what I mean.)

    In the meantime, I suggest that there be a MEEPT distribution of Linux--instead of Yellow Dog Linux on PPC, maybe we can have Big Bird Linux for the Presario or something... *chuckle*
  • We all know that the GPL allows one company to copy another's work. This happens all the time- I can think of at least five distros that are RedHat based. However, none of those distros is backed by a major company with a nation-wide distribution network. As a result, none of them are a serious threat to RedHat's income stream- which is how they fund all their GPL'd code. I'd really hate to see a large company make a lot of money off of RedHat's work just because they had the advantage of a larger distribution network, and were willing to abuse the openness of the GPL without contributing back to the community. If this is an ongoing trend, I'm not sure how companies that give back to the community (like RedHat and VA) will be able to continue to afford that overhead.
    ~luge
  • >I thought that every distribution had to be downloadable?

    No, it doesn't have to be. It all depends on the licencing involved. For example, if there was some commerical software on the distro, then that could be under a licence that you can't redistribute it.

    Even if it was all under a GPL, that also doesn't require a download link. The GPL allows someone to sell software on CDROM only, it doesn't require them to have it available for download. However, the GPL does give people the right to request the full source (on similar distribution methods as the binary, IIRC, i.e you can't by the software on CD, and insist on having the source downloadable) and to re-dististribute the software they have bought for no charge, and to make it available for download themselves. Nowhere does the GPL say "you must make your product available for download via the net", all it says is that anyone may do so without the permission of the author

    Most distros have an available download link, as it's in their best interests to have people going to them direct, as there is nothing legally stopping someone getting the GPL distro, and mirroring it elsewhere.

    As an aside, this is a new distro which is based on Mandrake, which is based on Redhat, does this 2nd level basis cause more confusion or does it give a chance for the derived distros to fix the problems of the base distro?

    --
  • Just listen to this from the 'full story' link:

    It offers a preconfigured desktop that, like Windows, organizes functions such as Games, Internet, etc., into groups.

    *That* I have longed for sooooo long.

    Don't hate the media, become the media.

  • One more reason to care... or not... (Score:3)

    by BadlandZ ( 1725 ) on Friday June 18, 1999 @03:21AM (#1845054) Journal
    Wooo!... Another... What? Based on what? Packages as what? It's at least SysV, right?...

    Hmm. Maybe it's just another reason to keep anyone who cares following the LSB [linuxbase.org], which is starting to make some "visable" progress now (compatibility testing tools...). Frankly, maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if there get to be tons of Linux distributions, as long as thier compatiable on a basic level. It sure doesn't hurt to have lots of diffrent telephone long distance carriers, but if they weren't compatable, you could only call people that use your carrier.

    Wait, Linux better be BETTER than the phone companies, that's the point of the LSB. I don't wanna see "you can't get that service unless you use brand X." If the base is the same, who cares who you get it from, I'd be happy with "Jonny Smith's Linux" that I picked up in the "impulse buy rack" at the grocery store, because I would probably end up changing what I didn't like anyway.

    Personally, I have started using FreeBSD as of late, I got sick of trying to find the "right" package out of 100 diffrent packages for the same application, or tracking libraries to insure the new verson of X will run, but not break the old version of Y. I have less and less time to do that stuff anymore (approching graduation), maybe some day when I have more time, I'll go back towards Linux installs.

  • I tend to agree with the 'song-writer/lyricist' here, in that multiple distributions serve to confuse the general public. Is anyone building an Open Source Linux Installation engine? :-)
  • "Nope, RedHat learned the error of their ways and went completely Open Source, but I doubt these guys ever will."

    A correction: redhat has always been GPL. Don't slam them until you know what you are talking about. (Silly S&M grads :)
    ~luge
  • Far fewer consider themselves programmers who aren't,

    Uh... Microsoft, IBM, MS VisualAnything++ users, Netscape (have you ever tried to run navigator on your *[iu]x box?), Crackers, Microsoft...

    You get the point.
    --------
  • Is Mandrake getting money from MacMillan? Now, given that I only skimmed the press releases, but I saw nothing of the sort. If that is the case, and a significant portion of the money goes to Lothar coding, then wonderful.

    However, I doubt that is the case- remember, nearly 1/5 of RH's income goes to GPL'd R&D. Somehow, I doubt 1/5 of Macmillan's income is going into Lothar R&D. If the portion is even 1/20, I'd be surprised. I see no sign that companies like MacMillan understand that the GPL legally allows them to take from the community, but also morally obliges them to give back. Clearly, it is possible (I think IBM understands this reasonably, if not perfectly) but I have not seen it yet from MacMillan.
    ~luge
  • I nearly wet my pants the first time I saw this commercial.
  • It's one thing to have more choice, but it is another thing to have a company that doesn't contribute to the community (like MacMillan) using their marketing and distributional power to undermine a company that writes and GPLs a lot of useful code (like RedHat). I think this is (unfortunately) where the mix of capitalism and the GPL will take us- a lot of cheap companies will rip off those who help out, killing them- and their contributions to the community. That's a damn shame...
  • Hmm, very interesting comment. And true. But it made me think about the LSB even more. I know they will probably NOT do this, because they are sort of not the kind of people who will go chasing the $ in the Linux world, but, here's an idea:

    LSB Approved branding, and LSB Supporters branding. Where the first mearly states it's compatable, and the second denotes that out of the $20 or so they charge per CD, they donate about $1-5 to the LSB, and $1-5 to support some trustworth open source foundation. And, if the company contributes significantly to GPL, it can get an "exempt" status granted by the open source foundation in order to recieve both brandings. Then it's clear to everyone who "supports" open source, and who doesn't, right on the label.

    This would allow people like LSL and CheapBytes to stay in buisness, and keep selling $1 CD's, but it's clear that the $1 CD doesn't support anything. And anyone who cares about growth of open source can pick any distribution with the right "branding." *(note: open source above doesn't nessessarly refer to "Open Source" but to a generic undefiened foundation/association/group.)

  • I remember the first time I picked up a Redhat distro from Compusa. There was Redhat Linux 5.2 (official) sitting next to Macmillan Publishing's Redhat 5.2. The first had a price tag of $50 and the second $30. I could see little or no difference in the software either box was offering; however, the redhat official box had a mousepad. Big fscking deal. So being the cheap bastard which I am, I bought the macmillan distro. I ended up installing it that night then passing it around to all my friends for them to try it. Someone offered to buy it, I insisted they just copy it and pass it on... In my mind, that's part of the concept of free software. Even though I paid money for it, I didn't care about recouping my costs, because I believe that each person who uses *nix rather than Windows is worth my thirty measly bucks.
    I'm glad Macmillan has done it again, this new distro is just the treat I've been waiting for, and I applaud them for using Mandrake. What could be better than a more-up-to-date distro of Redhat 6 than Redhat themselves offer, complete with Partition Magic and KDE for the default desktop? I don't want to go into the Gnome vs. KDE vs. Cardboard box wms, but I personally like KDE and find it very productive.
    Back to my cheap bastardness. When I casually stroll into Compusa and pick up my new distro, I'll get Deja-vu. There will be the super expensive Redhat 6 official box sitting next to the Macmillan box. Only this time the savings will be greater and the distro will be more valuable.
    And before anyone starts the asinine arguement of 'well you can just download it for free SNORD', let me just say this. I live in a painful world of 56k modems and no cd burners. So downloading something that big just isn't an option.

  • And exactly WHY is BSD worse? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I keep hearing that a BSD license is BAD because it allows for 'code forking'.

    Now having 32 different flavors of GNU/Linux is a GOOD thing?

    I just don't see how having 32 different GNU/Linuxes is good. The economic argument that 'competition is good' is null/void because you can get the code for free.

    So why is the 32 versions GOOD? Adding confusion?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • As long as we don't have RedHat-only software, different distributions can be catered to different people. Certainly a distribution tailored for a server might not be suitable for your average joe user or vice versa.

    Differing distributions, as long as softwware is Linux compatible and not just Red Hat compatible shouldn't hurt Linux.

    Differing distributions of Linux are certainly more compatible than Windows 95/98 versus Windows NT or Windows CE.

Slashdot Top Deals

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Close