Linked by Adam S on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:28 UTC, submitted by Robert Renling
Fedora Core "Red Hat and Fedora Linux are pleased to announce an alignment of their mutually complementary core proficiencies leveraging them synergistically in the creation of the Fedora Project, a paradigm shift for Linux technology development and rolling early deployment models." Read more at Fedora Linux's site.
Order by: Score:
v PHB-speak
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:07 UTC
Fedora?
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:11 UTC

Has anyone heard before of this "well-known provider of Red-Hat compatible packages"? Founded back only in December 2002 it seems.

non-marketing version
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:15 UTC

From http://fedora.redhat.com/about/name.html

"The rules for using the Fedora trademark will be generally more permissive than the rules for using the Red Hat trademarks. The separate name and trademark are necessary in order to have different rules for using the trademarks. The rules for using the "Fedora" trademark will be available before the first release of Fedora Core."

I wish Red Hat weren't so non-committal here, but does this mean that instead of CheapBytes selling "Pink Tie," LinuxCD selling "Blue Jacket," and OSDisc selling "Red Tux," every third-party CD Vendor will just call it "Fedora"?

Ummm
by Beavis on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:34 UTC

The old name made more sense.

WTF?
by Justin on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:43 UTC

Okay, this is the current RH beta (rawhide, severn, etc.), but isn't? Why not just call it red hat alpha, rather than rebranding it altogether?

Go Debian!
by Ben on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:46 UTC

Well, this is sad. No more official support for the people that made RH what it is today. This seems a bit nasty.

We just went with RH9 at my place of work. They wanted RH because "that's the standard" I warned them about RH EOLing their consumer version in 12 months, but this is much worse. Maybe when we go to upgrade I'll try harder to talk them into Debian.

they took away my primary reason for using fedora ... argggg!!
by anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:55 UTC

fedora.us - "* This merger necessitates the removal of certain problematic packages due to licensing issues."

Ya ... xine, mplayer they are already removed from fedora. So much for getting all the 3rd party apps all in one place. This sucks!!!!! Guess I will go back to freshrpms.net.

final effect?
by another2 on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:56 UTC

okay, here's the way i see it: redhat has the BEST hardware detection and gui tools to manipulate settings (to all you mandrake people, mandrake is based on debian so dont complain). The only problem is they have the WORST binary packages (i.e dependency hell), and apt rpm isn't a complete solution, it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of software debian provides. until there's a solution i'll be steering clear from redhat.

erratta
by another2 on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:57 UTC

i ment mandrake was based on redhat, my bad

RedHatīs Debian-like organization ?
by Juan on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:58 UTC

It seems that RedHat is trying establish a debian-like project so they can look after, and put focus on what their customers are paying for... merging and support services.

Now they can take resources from packaging to other tasks.

Anyone using rawhide?
by Adam Scheinberg on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 17:59 UTC

Anyone using Rawhide on Severn? I heard that it's got Gnome 2.4 and yum. Yum!

If RH were to move to yum, that would be HUGE for their software installation.

not sure
by Steve on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:12 UTC

It just sounds like this is the "beta" releases only. The never have supported beta's.

Ben, "Well, this is sad. No more official support for the people that made RH what it is today. This seems a bit nasty.

We just went with RH9 at my place of work. They wanted RH because "that's the standard" I warned them about RH EOLing their consumer version in 12 months, but this is much worse. Maybe when we go to upgrade I'll try harder to talk them into Debian."

Red Hat Linux will still be supported, they just branched their beta releases into a seperate project/name.

From the main page, " Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc."

It just sounds as if this is a "open" development platform for Red Hat Linux, I don't beleive this is bad.

Appears all the free finished products are gone
by tarpon bill on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:13 UTC

Looks like if you want a finished product there will no longer be free supported ones available. There appears to be no difference between Sun, Red Hat and SUSE except in the server area you can choose the Sun kernel over the Linux flavors.

With regards to desktops, looks like it is all going to be pay or no play. Unless you are a computer hobby type and build your own. I will probably switch to Sun Java Desktop for my small business customers because of cost vs Red Hat Enterprise WS. In beta testing Sun looks really good.

I never have understood why Linux development is so focused on the server when the desktop is where most(in numbers) users want to use it. A secure simple cheap alternative to windoze which runs on reasonable hardware is so badly needed.

Thanks for the laughter!
by elver on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:20 UTC

Feels like Dilbert, doesn't it? ;)

Could someone that's used Redhat for over a year and likes it tell me what they find so good about it? In my opinion, that's the most nerve wrecking distro ever.

Sexy Look
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:25 UTC

I like the look of their web pages =).

Yet another?
by Deak on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:25 UTC

I thought the whole point behind the open source movement was that it was 'free'. This makes no sense, it is too fragmented and they still miss the main point. No applications, easy installation of software, and some sort of standards without all the duplication of the same command ect.

Linux will forever remain a tinker os on the desktop, for the average user, Windows will remain the main os for all day to day get the job done computing. I agree with the other comment, the rpm needs to go.

One point off the subject, installing Linux on a laptop is still like a role of the dice. Modems don't work, getting the cd burner to work is like pulling teeth. Until they can get some of the basics figured out without requiring constant tinkering and patching forget it.

Re: Yum
by Beavis on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:29 UTC

Yes, Yum is in tha beta.

Re: final effect?
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:34 UTC

> redhat has the BEST hardware detection and gui tools to manipulate settings (to all you mandrake people, mandrake is based on debian so dont complain).

Mandrake has own GUI tools for a long time. And you don't know SuSE, or?

RE: Thanks for the laughter!
by tarpon bill on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:35 UTC

elver,

I have used Red Hat since 7 ish and in minimal installs it provides a complete set of tools a 'worker type' needs without the load of excess you get from windows.

Most people I deal with are browser centric since their work is mostly dealing with online sites for data and status/email.

Red Hat 9 is the best so far IMHO. It works fine on minimum hardware and does the job, especially with mozilla 1.4

Probably a lot of distros wiould do the same. But having retail boxes available locally WAS a big plus.

It seems people here do not know Fedora
by Maynard on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:36 UTC

I have been using it for a while now, it provides prepackaged applications for Redhat. Much like the Debian ring, if I can call it that. I think this is very good news. If you had not been using Fedora, you will not understand the fuss, but for someone who had found a way to easily 'apt-get install' on Redhat, dependencies and all, you will know why they teamed up with Fedora. Fedora is new, but they are already very popular. I do not think they are taking over Fedora at all. Its become more community. Its also a big validation of the efforts of the Fedora project.

what they find so good about it?
by Aitvo on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:37 UTC

Consistancy

Elver
by pros-n-cons on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:40 UTC

Could someone that's used Redhat for over a year and likes it tell me what they find so good about it? In my opinion, that's the most nerve wrecking distro ever.

Things just 'work' more on RH then on slackware, SuSe, etc.
not saying out of the box it works better, they are all tested well that way. But when I'm hunting down a program on the net its more then likely been tested on RH. If that application has a problem, somewhere on google I'll see people posting questions/anwsers on it. Most binary software
is made sure it works with RH. Documentation alot of times has "if you're using redhat you do blah blah blah"

In short its used alot meaning more complete bug testing help resources, etc. I was tired of hunting down installation problems when using slackware. since apparently i'm the only one on the planet using slackware who didn't know how to install a certain tarball with dynamic/static libs and correct prefix set.

I also like the artwork (rawhide ones are nice), kernel patchs and a few employees i think are some of the best in the business.

sounds like a commercial, I'm sorry but most ppl will find they're valid reasons.

Re: WTF?
by J. J. Ramsey on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:40 UTC

"Why not just call it red hat alpha, rather than rebranding it altogether?"

Because it's not going to be just alphas and betas, but releases every few months--not unlike the way the non-Enterprise versions of Red Hat were distributed before.

The rebranding is probably to avoid a problem that Red Hat has had for quite some time; too many Red Hat Linux users assumed that any Linux labeled with the trademarked name "Red Hat" must be supported by Red Hat. It didn't make a difference whether CheapBytes made clear that it was unsupported, or that the web site said that the download edition was unsupported. Too many people couldn't read past the "Red Hat" name. Red Hat probably figures that a trademark that is clearly not "Red Hat" will discourage people from thinking that they could get support from Red Hat.

See this thread on the Fedora Linux list:

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-August/msg00151.htm...

(Yes, I did start this thread. Not sure I triggered the name change, though.)

understand
by hornfujiraf on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:42 UTC

I think this is a great idea

red hat is to fedora as
sun is to openoffice

Red Hat pays several people to work on the project
This is like Debian, but supported by the fantastically growing R&D spending at Red Hat.

Fedora
by Deak on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:42 UTC

I wish they could get another browser besides Mozilla. I know there are several others, but most of the internet is geared towards IE and the fonts and websites do not display correctly.

Not trying to be negative, but Linux needs to work on the basics like making the os work with hardware better.

Fonts
by pros-n-cons on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:53 UTC

If your fonts are bad it just like you said, the web thinks everyone is using IE, Thats not mozilla/linux's fault. What I did was install corefonts and tell my browser to let websites choose the fonts (usually times new roman) and things work fine. if they're too small use zoom. last year during football season ESPN was like a jigsaw puzzle, but this year its working just fine =)

my 2c
by Cheapskate on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:54 UTC

if you like redhat yet want a desktop for personal use with multimedia support try JAMD (Just Another Modified Distro) it is based on Redhat yet the install is on a single CDrom...

http://www.jamd-linux.com/index.php

v RE: what they find so good about it?
by /* */ on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 18:56 UTC
RE: Multi-media
by Deak on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 19:04 UTC

My thoughts on the subject of multi-media are that I agree with one of the previous comments you will have to pay for the software in the future. It would be nice if there was more support in this area, but time will be the biggest factor in the end.

What about laptop support or lack there of?

freshrpms/dab/atrpms/nyquist
by cybrjackle on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 19:25 UTC

Since rhl is moving to "Fedora Project" One wonders how compatible the other RH repo's will be with the new branding???

Will using fedora and the other's make your system all types of messed up?

...
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 19:36 UTC

is this yet another linux distro springing up???

RE: Not sure
by Drill Sgt on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 19:58 UTC

"Red Hat Linux will still be supported, they just branched their beta releases into a seperate project/name."

As per RH themselves, they only support the "Conumer" release for 12 months fom date of release. That change came about last year. Basically they stop making updates and such for it, and up2date will not work as after 1 year those channels get closed. I would include the link but I can;t seem to locate it at the moment.

Looking for RH fan? I'm one.
by j3zmund on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 20:18 UTC

This is posted because elver asked for feedback. Just offering my opinion, which I'm entitled to, just like all of you. I'm not trying to start distro wars. That's played out...

{opinion} I've tried more distros that I can remember. Linux was brought to my attention in '98. I started wtih RH 5.2 (talk about a learning experience). These days, I mostly use RH9 downloaded from linuxiso.org. I continue to download and test new releases from the big names (mandrake, slackware, even freeBSD ~I know it's not linux, bite me) just to see what's up. Why do I keep coming back to RH?

It runs fantastic on my athon XP 2100. It runs fine on my mini-ITX from VIA. It even runs okay on my old PII 300 Mhz Panasonic Toughbook with only 196 MB of ram.

Since discovering apt-get functionality, I have none of the dependency issues that bug people to death (pardon the pun). Freshrpms.net has elimated the lack of multi-media options.

Sure, it doesn't have the wide selection of apps debian has, but I don't need 5000 applications as a home user. Just give me a solid browser, mplayer, instant messenger, and work with my digital camera, my printer, etc. The graphical config tools work. They might not be "cohesive" or all-in-one place, but they've come so far since 5.2, it's a dream. Compare to NT 4.0 and Win2k (they had you all over the place), and forget XP, I HATE wizards for simple tasks. Only SuSe seems to beat RH at this game, but their tools sometimes don't work as advertised.

My stable RH9 system hasn't crash since installing it. I keep a test system to break on purpose from time to time, but I've grown bored with that. If I want to install an unstable system, I just download some french distro.

I've tried many other distros over the years, but usually come back to RH. SuSe is the only other distro that I can tolerate (YaST and YOU rock). In fact, if they didn't want me to pay full price each release, I'd use it all the time. Call me cheap, I'm unemployed. IT work will burn you out, especially patching Windows machines all the time.

It all boils down to what works for you. Always choose the best tool for the job (and that includes considering whether you can use the tool, not just the technically or philosophically 'superior' tool)! Don't get religious about your O/S. It will eventually die. [Like my precious System 7! ;) ]

My friend tells me that the problems I've had with Mandrake are the same problems he has with RH. I guess our hardware is different enough to bring those issues up. I understand many newbie linux users enjoy MDK (even swear by it), but to me it doesn't seem entirely stable. I know you asked for positives of RH, not negatives on MDK. It's a combination of my experiences with all distros that drive me back to the RH. e.g. MDK 9.1 installs great, but how do you shut the system down? Do I have su to root and 'halt' the system? What did I miss during install? How 'bout a 'Shutdown' option in a menu somewhere?

This new combo of fedora and RH is a bit strange. I guess that's RH's way of dumping the home-user desktop product to focus on the big ticket item, as they should. They're turning a profit selling to enterprises. People like me just like to have kick-butt free software available to avoid M$ head-aches. Instead, I get open-source head-aches, but at least someone can help me figure out solutions without charging US$95 per incident.{/opinion}

In Summary...
by Shawn on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 20:40 UTC

In Summary, RedHat will no longer produce a commercial personal Linux distribution. They will help the community produce a personal distribution that is mainly supported by the community instead of RedHat. RedHat will continue to improve the codebase behind the scenes, but much like Debian is currently, the package maintainers and project leaders will be the ones responsible to ensure that security updates, etc. happen in a timely fashion.

No more Red Hat for me
by R.J. Dohnert on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 20:50 UTC

I do not like the new direction of Red Hat. Some of the things they are doing look really silly and not worth my time. Cutting retail was the worst mistake, renaming it is the straw that broke the camels back. I think I will be migrating back to SuSE.

Re: No more Red Hat for me
by Michael Knepher on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 20:55 UTC

Cutting retail was the worst mistake

Better to lose money on every box, eh?

Wow, synergy and paradigm shifts!
by -=StephenB=- on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 21:25 UTC

I bet they're proactive as well (to the EXTREME, of course).

Corporations see RedHat 9 and Red Hat Advanced Server, one costs $60 and is free to install on unlimited systems, the other one is $2000 and isn't. Since both have the RedHat name, the corporations naturally go with the cheaper one. So Redhat is changing this. By taking their name off the product, they do not have to worry about the quality, security bugs, etc. It is now officially a volunteer project, one that guarantees nothing and one where companies will not go near it. Very sneaky.

Redhat wasn't making money off it.
by Maynard on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 21:50 UTC

Redhat is not Mandrake. There are not enough people buying Linux to warrant Redhat producing a distro. But the community project is there and Redhat will be back in a flash if need be. Their Enterprise Linux is a better deal for companies anyway. Longer support and Slower release cycles which mean better ISV suport. (which ISV wants to rebuild software every new edition of Redhat?).

They will base all their enterprise products off this project. In case you haven't noticed, its more like they are taking more control of Fedora, than they are letting the community take part in the distro. Fedora is moving to redhat.com, and certain things Fedora will not be able to do anymore, like shipping GPL mp3 plugins for XMMS.

I will still root for Redhat. They must be doing something right, being profitable and all right now.

Not true
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 21:56 UTC

There won't be a Red Hat Linux 10. It will be "Fedora Core 1".

Don't panic about the removal of packages with legal/patent concerns. There'll be a project (or more than one) to provide compatible packages.

RE: non-marketing version
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 21:57 UTC


"mutually complementary core proficiencies"
"synergistically"
"paradigm shift"

I just threw up on my keyboard. Market-Speak makes me sick.


FEDORA LINUX
by Master of Masters on Mon 22nd Sep 2003 23:05 UTC

What amuses me is... to invest in Windows platforms is going to be easier than to spend your money investing in Red Hat Enterprise products. What used to be a "free" idea, has become a marketable thing. Which one is much more expensive? Windows Server or Red Hat Linux Enterprise AS ?

Fedora is what Gentoo, Debian, and FreeBSD are a long time ago. It's not that is bad, but I was so used to Red Hat Logo. LOL

Well, I am looking at the interesting Gentoo Linux. Kind of much more fun.

Redhat rocks when you have the fedora repo
by seraph on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:12 UTC

It installs perfect. All my hardware is set up. All the software I need (or most of it) is on the CDs/repos.

How come people don't complain that Windows doesn't have the software they need? Hell, not even a decent IM client. We get /most/ of it it, if not all (Depending on the user).

Another point is ease of use. Drivers? People say that 'modprobe <drivername>' is difficult. Oh, really? What about all the times I've had to install drivers for my friends, cause Windows XP just wouldn't do it right. Or the number of times I've had to do it for myself. Windows is easy when it comes preinstalled, alright. But there is *no* way to keep the difficulties away from the user. No OS has done this. Not even the legendary OSX.

What I don't get, is people having beef with RPM. I am VERY sure that more than half the people out there that complain about it, have never really used it.

Installing redhat, and trying to install ONE package, and having it fail on you, so you move distros, doesn't qualify you for an opinion. Use your brain, and get apt, or the dependencies.

Personally, I think that at the moment, nothing beats redhat when it comes to desktop linux. For a server, I'd go debian/FreeBSD.

(This comes from a former gentoo, debian, slackware, freebsd user. Oh, and Windows (3.x - Server 2003)

Though I do admit
by seraph on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:16 UTC

that Linux has a ways to go on the desktop. It has problems. And I am not a fanatic, so I realize that. However, it works for me ;)

RE: non-marketing version
by robcj on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:18 UTC

>"mutually complementary core proficiencies"
>"synergistically"
>"paradigm shift"
>
>I just threw up on my keyboard. Market-Speak makes me sick.

Don't blame marketing - that's just poor writing. I'm not sure I have ever read something so poor offered up for public consumption. Really.

Costs
by slash on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:20 UTC

Cost of Red Hat Server as a web server = $2000 / year
Cost of Windows Server as a web server = $800 for life

It just seems wierd that RedHat is trying to sell a product that they have had little contribution to for so much. I just don't see RedHat dethroning Microsoft. Viva Debian.

free and free
by s_d on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:23 UTC

Personally i think that it must be no free binaries/packages at all.
Maybe only minimal set of "bootstraping" tools.
Sources will be free, as before or even more.

But compiling, packaging, debugging - is just work to pay for.

Don't like to pay for others' work? Well! Get sources, spend your time. That's absolutely fair approach.

Clueless
by Erwos on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:40 UTC

"Cost of Red Hat Server as a web server = $2000 / year
Cost of Windows Server as a web server = $800 for life"

Cost of 10 MCSEs to admin your 50 Windows servers: $500k
Cost of 2 Unix admins to admin your 50 RedHat servers: $140k

Cost of 1000mins downtime with Windows: $100k
Cost of 100mins downtime with RedHat: $10k

There's also some other issues. Trust me, it's not $800 vs. $2000 like you'd want us to believe. You're also forgetting that MS Licensing v 6.0 forces you into a pseudo-subscription program anyways. All MS needs to do is start coming out with yearly OS updates, and you'll be paying out the nose whether you like it or not.

Debian? Be real. If something goes wrong with Debian, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN. You can't blame the vendor, as there _is_ no real vendor. Do you want to put your company's well-being and/or job in someone else's hands? I think not.

-Erwos

Re: Costs
by Maynard on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 01:54 UTC

I do not think you will want to buy Redhat AS to run a simple webserver. That is precisely what the community version is good for. Besides, you choose prices very selectively. You can get Redhat WS for $ 179, and the rest of the software is free. Suport costs money, and you have to pay for it. If you do not want support, get Fedora, it has everything you need. If it doesn't, you can find it very easily.

...
by Aitvo on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 02:11 UTC

"Cost of Windows Server as a web server = $800 for life"

Plus $xxxx a year for software assurance.

- http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/

What has changed?
by John Blink on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 02:23 UTC

I have been downloading Redhat Linux since 7.1, and am wondering what will change for me.

Will I still be able to get my ISO from any mirror around the world?

eg. When the next beta becomes a final release will I be able to download it as a Redhat iso or a fedora iso.

What they have done has confused me even further because I don't even know what the "redhat linux project" is.

Can someone help me out.

Market-speak and other things
by Michael Knepher on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 08:16 UTC

To those made ill by the buzzwords - the quote in the submission is actually from the tongue-in-cheek opening of the announcement sent to the rhl/fedora mailing lists. It's supposed to make you ill.

If you aren't sure what the Fedora Project is supposed to be, the best place for info (rather than uninformed speculation) is, lo and behold, http://fedora.redhat.com . Yes there will be ISOs for download, the next beta (scheduled for release this week) should be branded Fedora, though there may be some packages that still say redhat.

To those saying RH Enterprise products are too expensive, tell Red Hat's accountants. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you how there's no way any one would buy their stuff at those prices.

Also, $2000 per year for a Web server is not correct. RHEL AS is indeed priced at $1499 and $2499, depending on service levels, etc., but RHEL ES is available for $349 and $799 a year.

WINDOWS IS CHEAPER NOW
by The Butt on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 08:41 UTC

Well... one of the claims when Linux boom hit your hears in '98 was probably this: It's cheaper than buying Windows. I don't see that as a fact today. Go and buy RHELs now and see how much your company will invest. Analyse the same needs to buy Windows Server boxes. The Windows investment will probably save you cash - there's no learning curve for employees. It's just that that thing I have heard when Linux boomed is no reality today. If you want support and if you want a brand, spend $ 2000 each box.

Windows is cheaper?
by salmacis on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 09:41 UTC

I don't know if Windows is cheaper or not. You can measure it in so many ways - cost of software, cost of upgrades, cost of support, sysadmins, downtime, etc etc. What is important is that Linux no longer needs to compete on price. In the corporate environment, Linux is competing on features and stability. Who'd have thought that only two years ago?

Multimedia packages
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 10:14 UTC

There is a Red Hat based distribution called Euriliec with Xine, Mplayer, Lame, etc. They also have some interesting packages like Maxima gcl ...

Hmmm...
by Man at Arms on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 10:28 UTC

What about the consumer-oriented Red Hat Linux releases and its Red Hat Network? Some people do not want a 'community based' product you know and don't need the full-blown Server deals either.

Itīs not Euriliec ...
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 10:31 UTC

It is Aurox.

RE: Looks like RedHat is trying to charge corporations
by ttboy on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 11:13 UTC

"Corporations see RedHat 9 and Red Hat Advanced Server, one costs $60 and is free to install on unlimited systems, the other one is $2000 and isn't."

This is incorrect as I understand it. You can install RHAS anywhere you want as it is all GPL ( or LGPL ) software. Just do not expect support or binaries. The source RPMs are still available. I searched for this on the redhat site earlier this year and found an article which "more or less" says the same thing.

the corporate speak, it hurts my organs...
by AdamW on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 11:41 UTC

"core proficiencies"? "leveraging"? "synergistically"? "paradigm shift"? ARRRGGGHHH! For the love of God, no more!

j3zmund:
by AdamW on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 11:49 UTC

erm, that's gotta be the most bizarre mdk 9.1 criticism I ever saw ;) . MDK has a "Log Out" option on the first level of the kicker / foot menu. There's a "shut down" radio button right there. That's how you shut the system down...

I can't think why you possibly can't see one. Oh, unless you're running into an odd bug I remember a couple of people reporting where some shutdown options don't appear if you use autologin...maybe that's it?

"You can install RHAS anywhere you want as it is all GPL"
by Anonymous on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 11:56 UTC

WRONG! A company I know well has it, they can't do with it what the heck we want. Only one server is supported, and the support sux rox. Not all the time, but mostly.

Sigh
by Andrew Robert on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 12:11 UTC

My company has installed numerous instances of Red Hat v9 desktops because it is an industry leader.

With the fedora model, I am no longer convinced that I will receive timely security and bug fixes.

I am also no longer convinced that when something says it runs on Red Hat, it will stay true to Fedora.

We do not call Red Hat for support but security and bug fixes are a must and I can no longer trust this model.

I understand that Red Hat was probably losing money making a boxed or downloadable version, I am extremely dissappointed.

If Red Hat will not do a desktop, there are others that will.

As a hobbyist, I can take the time to play around with Fedora ( but not likely ) on my home systems and but corporately, this is not true.

See ya around Red Hat.

It was nice knowing you.

Re: Sigh
by RJDohnert on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 12:24 UTC

Try SuSE it is the new standard. Red Hat has messed up big time. I feel I can no longer trust them or rely on them. The quality of the product will surely go downhill, as Andrew said; See ya around Red Hat, it was nice knowing you.

Re: RPM & drivers
by -=StephenB=- on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 12:56 UTC

What I don't get, is people having beef with RPM. I am VERY sure that more than half the people out there that complain about it, have never really used it.

Installing redhat, and trying to install ONE package, and having it fail on you, so you move distros, doesn't qualify you for an opinion. Use your brain, and get apt, or the dependencies.


Um, some of us _have_ used both Redhat and Mandrake have good reason to loathe RPM (at least before the dependency resolving tools). Here's a fun situation I've had before:
- try to install (say) GAIM, but it requires a newer version of GTK than the distro ships with.
- no prob, download newer version of GTK and rpm -ivh it.
- der, GTK won't install because some other app depends on the older version of it specifically

It's like tail-chasing and whack-a-mole combined!

Another point is ease of use. Drivers? People say that 'modprobe <drivername>' is difficult. Oh, really? What about all the times I've had to install drivers for my friends, cause Windows XP just wouldn't do it right. Or the number of times I've had to do it for myself. Windows is easy when it comes preinstalled, alright. But there is *no* way to keep the difficulties away from the user. No OS has done this. Not even the legendary OSX.

I would say BeOS did/does (with the caveat being "on supported hardware"). Installing a driver on BeOS was usually a matter of downloading the archive, unzipping it, and then it could be as simple as the driver binary and a symlink to the directory it goes in named something like "drop [binary filename] here and restart networking/media/etc". And it was almost too automatic when it came to adding a piece of hardware that you already had a driver for. I stuck a BT 878 capture card in my PC and the only indication that it was detected and supported was that tv apps now worked and there were settings for it in the media prefs.

And of course there's the oft-repeated anecdote of a BeOS user taking a drive from one machine, putting it in another, and watching it boot no complaint, no "windows protection fault", not even much of a noticeable delay in the bootup time. I believe you can do this with MacOS 8-9, dunno about X. However, that's significantly easier to do on a mostly homogenous platform like Apples than it is to do on the range of hardware configurations that BeOS can run on. Windows 9x can do it, contrary to popular belief, but it's not nearly as painless. You usually have to start in safe mode first (or you get win protection fault error), then restart and feed it drivers from the windows CD for 5-10 minutes. Haven't tried with 2k/XP, but I've been told you have to delete the hardware portion of the registry to force it to re-detect hardware in the new machine.

While the limited range of supported hardware that BeOS supports can be frustrating, I think it should at least serve as a lesson to other OSes when it comes to the way it handles drivers and hardware detection.

Re: Sigh
by Maynard on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 14:10 UTC

Redhat has NOT abandoned the distro. They were planning to drop boxed versions and stop selling them. They will still make security fixes available for download. How can SuSE be a standards when it is so difficult to get for free. Go to fedora.redhat.com to see what this is about. They brought Fedora into the fold, not the other way around. Fedora is now a Trademark of Redhat. It is still part of Redhat. Fedora will be used as a base on which they build their own distro. No enthusiasts really want an old stable distro like Enterprise Linux. (Still GNOME 1.4). But perfect for companies. The new enterprise will ONLY have GNOME 2.2 still. Its Redhat strying to make sure it can sell software that it know work, and whose security is know known and trusted.

RE: Looks like RedHat is trying to charge corporations
by Drill Sgt on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 14:16 UTC

"This is incorrect as I understand it. You can install RHAS anywhere you want as it is all GPL ( or LGPL ) software. Just do not expect support or binaries. The source RPMs are still available. I searched for this on the redhat site earlier this year and found an article which "more or less" says the same thing."

Not true. I would like to see the article myself to be proven wrong. The whole Enterprise line is proprietary to RH, and can not be downloaded. The source is not available on any of the FTP sites except for 3 or 4 GPL packages from what I have been able to find. I don't know any more about it then what I have seen from Redhat though, as the price of the workstation is too much considering the regular distro does everything it needs to do.

RE: sigh
by Drill Sgt on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 14:26 UTC

"How can SuSE be a standards when it is so difficult to get for free."

Well, having used RH since 5.2, and I actually swore by it until recently. I decided to drop the cash and try SuSE, and have found a simpler install as well as every piece of hardware was found and installed correctly without the need to edit any files whatsoever. As far as for free, well, it can be done by doing an FTP install. I buy the box set as it includes the other items like Java and such that with RH I have to d/l and install seperately, configure, etc. It all just worked with SuSE.

Sorry for rambling, but am just trying to answer the question on how it can be a desktop standard.

Re: Sigh
by RJDohnert on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 14:48 UTC

<< Redhat has NOT abandoned the distro >>

You might as well say they have, they seem more interested in the enterprise than they are in the consumer, which is their decision, a bad one, but their decision none the less.

<< They were planning to drop boxed versions and stop selling them >>

They WERE not planning to do no such thing, they ARE planning to do it.

<< How can SuSE be a standards when it is so difficult to get for free. >>

They have an FTP install, which is free and I have contacted SuSE and asked them about making ISO's, anyone can make ISO images and offer them for free but they will have no support.

<< The new enterprise will ONLY have GNOME 2.2 still. Its Redhat strying to make sure it can sell software that it know work, and whose security is know known and trusted. >>

They can offer it all they want, they can sell anything they want doesnt mean I have to buy it, or that they will sell it anyway. All Red Hat has done with this move, IMO is alienate their customers, I wont sell Fedora Core or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. One of the many things that I liked about Red Hat was pretty much anything they put out was solid, it worked and it hardly had any problems. You had a few but they were minor and not a big deal. All they have done is put the consumer version in maintenance mode and now i do not know what kind of quality the consumer will get. Most people who use Red Hat Linux on the desktop are corporate developers and IT, i for one and speaking as an IT professional I do not like using prealpha or beta software in a professional environment, thats one of the reasons why I moved from Debian and Slackware to SuSE and Red Hat Linux. Debian and Slack were always giving out beta versions of software and those two are pretty much made for enthusiasts SuSE and until now Red Hat were built for corporate environments, they had that mode of thinking, Red Hat Linux has now followed the same path as Debian and Slack, Fedora will be nothing more than a hobbyists play toy. They can keep it. SuSE right now seems more like a viable solution and unless Red Hat changes its ways back to thinking about the consumers, Red Hat will suffer.

Re: RJDohnert
by Maynard on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 15:10 UTC

You might as well say they have, they seem more interested in the enterprise than they are in the consumer, which is their decision, a bad one, but their decision none the less.

They seem interested in making more money, which they are doing. Consumers were not buying enough boxes to justify continuing to make them. Redhat will not drop a money making venture. I think people have to realise that Redhat is not a charity organisation. They offered a distro, and no one bought, so they pulled retail.

All Red Hat has done with this move, IMO is alienate their customers, I wont sell Fedora Core or Red Hat Enterprise Linux

Cheapbytes will sell it. Redhat is already selling Enterprise Linux, and making a profit from it last time.

SuSE does not make isos, and no one is allowed to distribute isos, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. They include non open source software on the cds to make sure you cannot do that. This is stuff like Codeweavers, Star Office and so on. So making isos and redistributing them is 'piracy', though I do somewhat detest the term. If you wanted, you could repackage SuSE to exclude these packags, but they have already made it that difficult. which is one reason you see Redhat having so many distro based on it, including SuSE. They make it much easier. No non free software on the cds.

Re: Drill Sgt
by Maynard on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 15:22 UTC

Eh, go to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/i386/... , yes, its all there. So please, your retraction.

Maynard and Suse
by cybrjackle on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 15:46 UTC

[quote]SuSE does not make isos, and no one is allowed to distribute isos, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. They include non open source software on the cds to make sure you cannot do that. This is stuff like Codeweavers, Star Office and so on. So making isos and redistributing them is 'piracy', though I do somewhat detest the term. If you wanted, you could repackage SuSE to exclude these packags, but they have already made it that difficult. which is one reason you see Redhat having so many distro based on it, including SuSE. They make it much easier. No non free software on the cds. [/quote]

Your talking about there Desktop 1.0 edition. 8.2 and so on can be burned and handed to your buddy.

RE: Drill Sgt
by Drill Sgt on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 17:43 UTC

"Eh, go to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/i386/..... , yes, its all there. So please, your retraction."

Like I said, prove me wrong ;)

That has changed which is good. A few months ago all packages were not listed for the "enterprise" products.

Thnaks for the link.

Re: Maynard
by RJDohnert on Tue 23rd Sep 2003 18:22 UTC

I got my information from SuSE itself, anyone can make ISO's of SuSE Linux and distribute those ISO's via web or at a LUG Installfest, but you will get no support from SuSE on these ISO's.

RE: RE: Drill Sgt
by ttboy on Wed 24th Sep 2003 01:26 UTC

"Like I said, prove me wrong ;)

That has changed which is good. A few months ago all packages were not listed for the "enterprise" products.

Thnaks for the link."

Bullshit. Thay have always had the SRPMS available.

"WRONG! A company I know well has it, they can't do with it what the heck we want. Only one server is supported, and the support sux rox. Not all the time, but mostly."

Read the post before you comment. I said, you can use it but you will NOT have support. All the software is available at their site or mirrors and is under GPL

http://www.in.redhat.com/products/whichlinux.php3

RE: ttboy
by Drill Sgt on Thu 25th Sep 2003 00:27 UTC

"Bullshit. Thay have always had the SRPMS available."

Not that I was able to access anonymously, as it was asking for a log in prior. So in that respect it changed as I was able to access them this time. Maybe it was just a problem on my end, who knows. I have already conceded that I was wrong, so go troll elsewhere thanks.