Red Hat 9 To Be Released March 31

Garfunkel writes "Looks like Red Hat is breaking tradition and skipping 8.1 and 8.2 and jumping directly to 9.0 RHN subscribers get it a week ahead on March 31st. Available to the rest the world a week later (April 7)." The website refers to the upcoming release simply as "9" -- which doesn't rule out future point releases, but could it be?

Hah!

Just trying to keep up with Slackware [slackware.com].

"Are you running Linux 9 yet?"

best linux ever!

redhat laboratories releases linux9 advanced server pro champion edition(tm)

redhat laboratories has announced today the future release of 'linux9 advanced server pro champion edition(tm)'. redhat scientists have announced that this will be the most numerically advanced version of linux ever sold. by abandoning older 8.x technology (found on previous releases), redhat has been able to accelerate the versioning capabilities of linux by nearly 10 percent.
numerically advanced versioning technology is an important step in bringing redhat to the enterprise. many enterprise customers, who run high-availability servers on big iron hardware, demand the stability and maturity that can only come from numerically advanced version numbers. moving to linux9 puts redhat in direct competition with sun microsystems' (SUNW) solaris operating system, which has been sporting version 9 release enumeration for over a year.

in other news, redhat has announced that linux9 advanced server pro champion edition(tm) will be distributed in a six dvd set, that includes 2 dvd's containing the basic distribution, and 4 dvd's of pre-compiled packages. additional dvd's supporting non-x86 architectures may also be available for purchase.

Re:best linux ever!

You forgot to mention the Limited Edition DVD set which will include more packages and a special "Making of Red Hat 9" production. Bio's for all the Red Hat minor actors that were a part of the final product are also included like Lilly the secretary and Big Joe in accounting. A must have for ALL Red Hat fans.

Odd...

9 instead of 8.1?
Could this be an early April Fool's joke?

Re:Odd...

With no PR build-up, and no listing of new features on RedHat's website (can anyone else find any, because I certainly can't!) this release certainly looks like a bad joke, and if it's not an April Fools then it makes Red Hat look like a bad joke.

I'm using 8.0 now, and RH's games with registration and update-systems combined with their ridiculous "BlueCurve" rebranding (I'm sorry, but it just takes RH even farther away from any sort of standard, and forces it's users to go to RH for software updates), combine to make Red Hat look un-professional. Why should I buy any of their software, if they're just going to come out with a new major version months later and leave me in the dust?

I mean really, what warrents this? Is there a brand new Kernel major version that I've somehow missed hearing about? Does RH have the inside on a new blazingly fast XFree86? If this is serious it's a ridiculous marketing game, and if it's a joke it's wholly unprofessional!

As soon as I've time it's back to the source [kernel.org] and on to Gentoo [gentoo.org] for me!

Re:Odd...

My guess is that they are following the same rule they always have. If it has a upgrade to a major library (glibc), major kernel internal changes, or a new compiler which isn't backwards compat with the older RedHat version, they bump the major number instead of the minor. It's normally some sort of major binary compatibility upgrade.

The next edition of RedHat I believe is supposed to include the new kernel threads stuff, with the glibc that supports it (hence re-implementing pthreads), it has a new compiler, and the new glibc. So probably the applications aren't binary compat with 8.0, so this is now 9.0. The price you pay for upgrading. It's not like the upgrade path doesn't work, and it's not like upgrading past these things will be vastly superior on Gentoo.

They are pushing out new big things, if you want to stay current, then upgrade to it. What's the big deal about the major version number? I really don't see why your panties are in a bunch with RedHat. Gentoo will do most of the same crapola to your machine that Redhat does when you upgrade, it just won't have a major version number change. Big whoop.

Kirby

Re:Odd...

Sure, my guess is that the Enterprise line (AS, ES, WS) are seen as the supportable versions that they sell to major customers so they can get a stable platform for several years.

The regular ISO's they will see as something nice to do for the community, and have it be the test bed for new features, and the "beta/gamma" release of the upcoming Enterprise series. Then the new enterprise releases will have lots of software that has been tested and released on all kinds of hardware and they will have a very good chance of making a very, very stable release for the enterprise lineup.

Because they have the stable release, I believe you'll see fewer, and fewer X.1 and X.2 releases, and you'll see a lot more .0 releases. Somewhat because it will be enticement to have people buy the Enterprise line, and somewhat to keep the "beta/gamma" testing on the bleeding edge. It's a pretty clever scheme all in all. If they can pull it off, and keep the bugs in the .0 releases down, and put out a .1 to solve big problems in .0, I'll happily use the standard ISO on my desk, and happily pay the money for the Enterprise lineup for my servers.

Kirby

Re:Odd...

Subject: Red Hat Linux 9 | Get the latest Linux early

Dear Dirk:

You may know that Red Hat Network is the best way to keep your
systems running the latest errata and always up to date. What you
might not know is that Red Hat Network passed the one million users
mark earlier this year. We've listened to valuable feedback and have
added two items of interest to keep those users happy - early release
of Red Hat Linux 9 ISOs and improved technical support.

Beginning March 31, 2003, paid subscribers to Red Hat Network will
have access to Red Hat Linux 9 ISOs - a full week before retail store
and Red Hat FTP availability. Also, Red Hat Network subscribers will
receive dedicated Red Hat Network Technical Support.

Learn more about the benefits of being a Red Hat Network Subscriber:
http://redhat.chtah.com/

To purchase a Red Hat Network subscription:
http://redhat.chtah.com/

Thanks again for using Red Hat Linux. We appreciate all feedback
from our users and hope you enjoy Red Hat Linux 9.

Sincerely,

Red Hat

--

The above email is intended for people who have opted-in to receiving
email from Red Hat. If you think that you have received this email in
error, please accept our apologies. Simply click on the link in the
section below and we'll make sure you do not receive this kind of
email from Red Hat again.
http://redhat.chtah.com

Re:Kernel version

Phoebe (8.0.94) has 2.4.20 (too many versions!!!)... it includes the O(1) scheduler and some latency patches... the desktop is really quite snappy (X 4.3 will be included, Phoebe is working off a pre-4.3 snapshot). I hope 9 includes Nautilus 2.2.2 because the GNOME team added some speed increases there too.

Anyways, the nVidia drivers (the kernel module component) needs some changes to be able to run on the beta (they're available, but not from nvidia directly), but I suspect nVidia will have this released shortly after RH9. Additionally, some third-party stuff will have to be relinked, because of thread local storage stuff and the new NTPL -- Redhat backported a lot of stuff from the 2.5 series. Hence the 9.0 release (IMHO) since an 8.1 release would seem to imply that it's relatively backwards-compatible. It seems there are too many low-level interface changes to justify a point release.

Some drivers are already ready for the 2.5 kernel (as ready as you can get for software-in-progress), so you just need to hack the version numbers a little bit to get it to compile properly -- for example, the PowerVR drivers. Specifically, the VM API has changed quite a bit, so when RH backported these changes, they got the new API as well.

The beta looks really nice though, especially with GNOME 2.2. And CD burning is integrated in Nautilus (drag-and-drop, then click the burn icon, and it writes it to disc). Very nice stuff is on its way...

DVD ISOs

Anyone know if they'll release DVD ISOs? I think for previous versions you had to be a member or whatever.

It would be kinda nice to download just about every package and put it on one DVD.

Re:DVD ISOs

Downloading DVDs is illegal.

Ximian, where for art thou?

And to think, I'm still waiting for Ximian to release it's version of Gnome for RedHat 8.0 [ximian.com].

Re:Ximian, where for art thou?

You might want to look up the meaning of wherefore. Unless you're questioning why Ximian exists at all?

Re:Ximian, where for art thou?

Ximian Desktop for single-users probably isn't a big money maker.

These days, Ximian seems to be focusing on three main products:

- The mono project, which isn't exclusivly Ximian but could give Ximian a big advantage c#/.NET arena, and incorporating Ximian Desktop

- Their RedCarpet Enterprise manager

- Evolution and other projects for some of the bigger *nix's like HP-UX and Solaris.

Those bigger contracts are probably the only thing keeping Ximian alive at the moment.

Re:why do subscribers get it ahead

Uh, because being a subscribed user has its perks?

It's not a scam. If you don't want to pay, then don't. If you want to pay, then you'll not only get things a whole week ahead of time, you'll also get support.

What on earth does this have to do with "the cult of Linux"?

Re:why do subscribers get it ahead

Additionally, Redhat wants to make some money and the subscription model isn't a bad one. If you want to be the last on the block to have it, you don't have to pay anything. But if ya want managed updates, early access, and whatever other perks they throw in then ya pay the fee.

Re:Unified Desktop

i'd heard complaints about the unified desktop repeatedly here and in the newsgroups since 8.0 was released. over the week i finally downloaded the iso's and installed psyche on the last machine in my house that still had windows on it, and damn, i was impressed.

redhat still offers full customization of EITHER window manager, and if there is some esoteric g/kde setting i'm not aware of, download the newest k-rad alpha of whichever and install it. the point of the unified desktop was to make it appeal to corporate and grandmas without taking away either option.

within about 2 hours, i had my desktop looking and acting like mac osx (via kde) and my wife couldn't believe how wonderful it worked.

so, speaking as a person who's brand new to the unified desktop, and as an RHCE, either install whatever you prefer, learn how to install theme packages, or stfu.

Re:Unified Desktop

I disagree. The main complaint we've heard for years is the non-unified desktop... nothing feels integrated. While KDE is integrated in itself, and Gnome is integrated in itself people are always going to run applications from both and they don't want it to look so blatantly different.

Pain and Misery

So far, point releases have had useful enhancements, while major releases have redone everything and made life miserable. (e.g. using xinetd and broken a gcc in 7.0, metacity stubbornly by default in 8.0)

Hopefully this is just a marketing decision.

Re:Pain and Misery

Also in the 8.x series redhat does not ship apache 1.3x or perl 5.6. Only the latest 2.0 with perl 5.8 which no mod-perl modules is available.

After an install alot of downloading is diffinetly required.

Hey Boss!

In related news, I'm changing my job title to Systems Analyst 2.0, to better highlight new features and capabilities. Of course, biweekly licensing fees will be readjusted to reflect this enhanced functionality...

Confusion

I suppose that higher numbers are better from the perspective of new users comparing products, although the race ahead didn't seem to do Mandrake enough good.

A day shy of April 1 is kind of fishy, though.

Lastly, imagine the chaos that will reign when Redhat releases Red Hat 10.

Yes, it will be "ten", as in the same version as the Apple OS X, also a UNIX.

Oh, but "X" is the windowing system for UNIX, you know, "eks eleven", which is much better than "X10", the same as the clunky old protocol for handling devices around your house. Not Windows, but "X Windows"...

It'll be like "Who's on First" all over again...

Re:Confusion

It goes up to eleven, thats one louder than all the other amps.

Re:Confusion

X11 is much better than X10 because X11 doesn't have annoying pop-up ads!

Yippie.

So essentially Red Hat upgrades from 8 to 9 in ~6 months. No wonder no one wants to write general-release commerical apps for Linux .. by the time they develop & test their product, the distro essentially discontinues the release & doesn't support it. At this rate, I don't think we will ever convince developers of some great software (Adobe, Macromedia, etc) to port to Linux. Way too much support-related cost involved. But I'm sure that there are some really excellent features packed into 9 to make it worth being a full version upgrade and not a point upgrade (uhh.. not)

Re:Yippie.

So essentially Red Hat upgrades from 8 to 9 in ~6 months. No wonder no one wants to write general-release commerical apps for Linux .. by the time they develop & test their product, the distro essentially discontinues the release & doesn't support it.

I didn't see anything about the difference in numbers determining for how long a particular release was supported. In fact, I'm pretty sure that RH8.0 will be supported for 12 months - like they said it would be.

At this rate, I don't think we will ever convince developers of some great software (Adobe, Macromedia, etc) to port to Linux.

We won't convince them by taking a half-broken desktop that hardly anybody uses and claiming it's stable either.

Desktop Linux (which is what redhat linux is now) is still very much beta software. When it's actually fully competitive with Windows in every respect, then expect it to start slowing down in terms of churn. Everybodies up in arms because a major release number means things change and backwards compatability is sometimes lost. Maybe in future we'll all be using distros with 6 month release cycles still, but that doesn't mean there will be chaos in the realm.

But I'm sure that there are some really excellent features packed into 9 to make it worth being a full version upgrade and not a point upgrade (uhh.. not)

You make it sound like the major version number is based on how many cool features something has. It isn't. It's based on significant loss of compatability/significant changes in the API/ABI levels.

Re:Yippie.

Thats what the LSB is for really. If its an LSB compliant distribution the LSB compliant apps should work, whether its numbered 8, 9 or 5001.

Its also why United Linux and Red Hat both have business oriented distributions which change much more slowly.

Alan

RHL 7.0 started out as Red Hat Linux 7

It's been pointed out on the beta list that 7.0 was just called 7 when it came out. That didn't stop a 7.[123] from appearing later.

This leaves RHCE's in the brown smelly stuff

It's all very well RedHat playing "keeping up with the Jones'" with Slackware and Mandrake, but what about those of us who have spent our hard-earned money on a not-so-cheap certification that will now be rendered expired because of this jump to 9.0?

I got my RHCE less than a year ago, at RH7.2. It was stated that RHCE's are valid for two releases - ie when 9.0 came about, I have to recertify.

Was I wrong to expect that since it took two years to go from 7.0 to 8.0, I might actually have been able to hold onto my certification for more than one year!?

Re:This leaves RHCE's in the brown smelly stuff

If you're a RHCE, the release schedule of RHAS is probably more relevant to you than the release schedule of RedHat's regular Linux distro...

Re:This leaves RHCE's in the brown smelly stuff

The RHCE scheme will be adjusted to reflect the numbering change. If you want more details contact [e-mail].

This should probably have been announced at the same time but wasn't.

Features & Verson numbers

If Red Hat has refined it and added enough features and eye candy, it may well warrant a new version number.

I've always thought that versioning should be more related to features & point releases than anything external, like "marketing".

I see a few reasons for the "9" over 8.1

1. Red Hat changed things enough and added enough new features to warrant 9.0.
2. Marketing figured 8.1 wouldn't sell as many copies a 9.0

I'd really like to see a list of "new features" so I can decide for myself. :)

Re:Features & Verson numbers

There is one and only one reason that Red Hat bumps the major number, and that's binary compatability. If you can't run binaries under it that you could in the previous release, then it can't have the same major-number. Period. Usually the reason for the change in binary compatibility is due to library changes (e.g. new major version of glibc).

Now, there may be political, marketing or contractual reasons that a major number is prefered, but since binary compatibility is not guaranteed between major releases, you'll usually find that the one leads to the other, and thus the original statement holds true (i.e. engineers are free to rev libs in a major release, so they do).

The reason that Red Hat would release a new major version so soon after 8.0 is almost certainly to track the latest desktop updates which have been fast-and-furious since 8.0 was released, especially from GNOME (2.2.x is FAR more reasonable than 2.0, which IMHO, Red Hat released too early).

Re:Features & Verson numbers

Marketing figured 8.1 wouldn't sell as many copies a 9.0

Why? I'm still running RH7.3. The reason I didn't upgrade to 8.0 is mainly that the .0 releases are by many considered to be problematic. I tried 7.0 when it was released and I hated it. I had decided to upgrade from 7.3 to 8.1 as soon as 8.1 was released. Now I start wondering if I should rather stay on 7.3 and wait for 9.1 to be released. Or is it about time I try another distribution?

Re:Features & Verson numbers

Now what if RedHat changes it's mind and renames the release to 8.1 at the last minute? Does that mean you would use it?

Now we see the problem of judging an app by it's version number rather than it's reviews.

Reguardless of the version number, either wait until the reviews are in, or try it out on a machine you don't care about. A version number is meaningless.. even the difference between 9.0 and 8.1 is arbitrary.

Re:Features & Verson numbers

Why? I'm still running RH7.3. The reason I didn't upgrade to 8.0 is mainly that the .0 releases are by many considered to be problematic. I tried 7.0 when it was released and I hated it. I had decided to upgrade from 7.3 to 8.1 as soon as 8.1 was released. Now I start wondering if I should rather stay on 7.3 and wait for 9.1 to be released. Or is it about time I try another distribution?

Yeah, according to RH's research, 80 of the RH users out there are running 7.x or higher. But i'd suspect not more than 30% or so are running redhat 8, and most of those are desktop's, i'm sure, not servers. Which brings up:

There's a much bigger problem:
What about support for those of us running RH 7.x?? What happens when a vulnerability occurs in the code? How far back do you think they'll release patches? I know they don't continually patch 6.x now, so I'd imagine that they won't continue to patch 7.x after this release. That's going to leave me and my 50 computers at work running RH 7.x high and dry.

Cause, I'm damn sure not upgrading to RH 8. You may think it's buggy, but you don't know the half of it. Try running it on a server sometime - it CAN'T be done in a sane manner. The default install installed apache 2, but then tried to install a version of mod_perl that is incompatable with 2.0, so then it also installed 1.3.19, but then mod_php wouldn't work, no SSL support, etc. Good grief. RH 8 was buggy beyond belief.

So, now, i'm expected to update to something, either 8 or 9 on 50 comptuers at work, and not break anything in the upgrade?

Thanks, redhat. If you weren't what everyone asked for, i'd move back to debian or gentoo. This is exactly why no one wants to release binaries for linux. If you wrote something for NT 3.51, chances are it still works in 2k server. Not saying that IIS is better, but linux needs to work on the not forking so much thing, and leave some sanity in the backwards compatability.

free software

Since it's free software, couldn't an RHN member technically just leak it without consequence?

Re:free software

couldn't an RHN member technically just leak it without consequence?

He could, and then start praying for the link not to be posted on slashdot for the first week.

No! No! No! PREMIUM services are necessary.

And it's shit like this that undermines companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, and other open-source companies.

Red Hat Network & the Mandrake Club, etc., exist so the people who are willing to *PAY A PREMIUM* receive better or more prioritized service.

There are so many reasons this is wrong. By freeloading off of RHN, you're effectively telling Red Hat "Hey, we're not willing to pay for a product that you've spent time and money on. Since it's GPL, we're gonna get it for free anyway."

Red Hat spends time and money improving Linux, and sharing with the community. Whether or not you use their distro, like their politics, or whatnot, "Red Hat Linux" is pretty much what most people who've HEARD the word Linux think of.

By stealing the link and posting it to Freenet, you're cheating the people who paid a premium for early access.

Look at it this way: Just how much would you giggle if you placed an order and put down a deposit for a new Harley Davidson (Ferrari, Hummer, what the fuck ever), and someone was able to get their bike before you, without paying a deposit, because their buddy works for the dealership - making your wait longer?

Sorry to jump all over your ass, but Open Source companies NEED people willing and able to pay a premium to receive premium service. It improves public perception and a company's willingness to stay in business.

Freenet doesn't keep developers in Mountain Dew.

You young whipper snappers!

Back in my day, we were able to count version numbers with a single hand, because most of us had lost the other one fighting bears and snowmen!

ugh, even linux does it now

people are retarded and must have the newest version number, or the fastest clockspeed - even if that doesn't necessarily denote "better"

I would have thought that the linux crowd would be smart enough to be above that... which isn't to say that they aren't - perhaps it is the sales and marketing people at redhat that are retarded here.

They should just step it up to 34 and show their customers that all the others suck.

(of course nothing should ever go past version 42)

Hope 9.1 is out before the end of the year...

I hope they get a stable & mature 9.x release out by the end of the year, like 9.1 or 9.2, before the EOL cycle for 7.x systems.

My 7.3 system is pretty mature. Moving from a well-patched x.3 system to a immature x.0 system seems like a potential can of worms.

Re:RHN EOLing all current and past products this y

This isn't new info - Redhat 8.0 was always planned to EOL at December 31. This was announced at the same time they were planning to EOL RH6.2/7.0.

What it means is, starting with RH9, you have 12 months of errata. You'll be able to use RH9 until March 31st, 2004, a year after release.

This *is* inconvenient, because it means, at minimum, taking a machine down to kickstart it every year. THAT is annoying as hell, especially since you aren't going to deploy RH9 site-wide for at least 2-3 months (shortening the releases "lifetime" by 3 months).

I thought this was a huge problem until I looked at their ES [redhat.com] level enterprise solution. Since enterprise entitlements are $120 anway, paying $230 for an OS that doesn't expire for 3-5 years seems perfectly reasonable.

If your systems are mission-critical enough to NEED to be left stable for *years*, then going with Advanced Server makes more sense than any other distro - they stabalize the platform for 18 months between releases, minimizing your QA and upgrade time significantly.

Seems like a trend - pay for early download

YellowDog [yellowdoglinux.com] offer early ISO's to people who pay as well, I guess it's a result of the fact that people mostly download GNU/Linux distros these days?

Breaking binary compatibility?

Historically, RedHat has always guaranteed that all .x releases will be binary compatible with their major number. However, I don't recall any major changes with gcc & glibc. Is there some other change that would make this release not be binary compatible with RH8?

Re:Breaking binary compatibility?

You bring up an excellent point - and you're along the right track. If we examine the features of Red Hat Linux 8.0.9x (Phoebe beta), we notice that several things have been added to the OS that will set it apart from previous releases. You can find the changes (so far) to Red Hat Linux 9.0 in the release notes of Phoebe:

http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/beta/phoebe/en/o s/ i386/RELEASE-NOTES

I think the two major updates that will definitely warrant a few "major" number upgrade will be the following:

1) glibc update from the 2.2 development branch to the 2.3 branch; the major feature would be the addition of the NPTL (Native POSIX Thread Library).

The release notes cite that legacy (LinuxThreads) applications will work with NPTL if and only if they conform to the POSIX standard.

2) The new and improved XFree86 4.3 (usability, eye-candy, performance, drivers, et al.).

3) Extended attributes (EA) and access control lists (ACL) finally come to Red Hat's distribution - giving per-file control par with NT and other OSes that have already had EA and ACL.

4) The inclusion of Gnome 2.2 fine tunes Gnome 2.0 to a better degree.

So far, the glibc update (which seems to branch off the glibc that is shipping with Red Hat Linux 9.0) that was given to Red Hat Linux 8.0 users seems to be wreaking havoc with regards to threads implementations; a few examples:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cg i? id=86498
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/sho w_bug.cgi? id=86465
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/sho w_bug.cgi? id=86449

It should be noted that Red Hat has been extraordinarly adept with the inclusion of compatibility packages to allow legacy applications to continue working with their newest offering.

beta tested

I've been using the beta version of this for a month now. Phoebe is the name of the beta if anyone is interested in seeing what might be changed as of the last update.

My impressions as a person who uses this as a desktop at home and is normally a Mandrake kind of user:

It is a very easy to use and install and stable distro. I don't like that they include almost no configuration tools. To make it a good desktop distro I had to download a lot of extra rpms because the cd's with the distro are packed with server/workstation rpms. Also, though not RedHat's fault, NVidia's glx driver doesn't work properly with the new kernel and some weird dis-optimizations to the code have to be done in order for it to work (as of mid Feb; haven't checked lately). This is an issue with all 2.5 and 2.4.20 and above kernels, IIRC.

It is very similar to 8.0 (but they might have changed some things in the last month). The biggest gripe I have is that they use GRUB as the bootloader, but have no configuration utility for it. I'm a LILO person, but I thought I'd install GRUB to see if it was better. The man pages weren't very helpful and RedHat includes nothing to help, either. I went back to LILO, but since RH has no priority for it, there was no graphical options for LILO, just text.

It works for what it is supposed to work for: servers and workstations. As a desktop user that wants to have a simple and easy distro, I switched to Mandrake 9.1 rc1.

Re:beta tested - Grub config

My RH 9 beta has a grub configuration util, it is located in /bin/vi

Or they could do what IBM does...

And release it as 9.1 without a 9.0. IBM does that with DB2, because apparently point-oh releases scare people away. It seems to me that version numbers for most things don't mean anything anymore. If you're going to just make up a number that sounds good to customers, then just name the release instead.

Stable version needed

Ok, they change the major version when the API changes. Fair enough. But 8 wasn't ready for prime time and I'll bet 9 won't be either if it has enough low level changes to require a new major. Will a new stable version ship before 7.3 goes unsupported on Dec 31? Perhaps, but it sure won't leave much time to test and deploy.

If they are going to pitch themselves as "Commercial Linux" they really need to act like it. And no, their "Enterprise" offerings are only going to be applicable to a very small customer base, the ones who would be buying Solaris or HP-UX; i.e. Enterprise computing applications. not the computing lab or departmental server market. If they are departing the small/medium/education markets I really wish they would announce that so we could be putting energy into investigating alternatives NOW instead of when the crunch hits Dec 31.

Blimey.

*Just* after I get my video drivers (NVIDIA), mouse (Logitech) and soundcard drivers (SB Live)all up and running.

I'm running RH8.0 ATM, and am a big newb to linux. I am wondering what one needs to do after an 'upgrade' install when they have previous drivers/settings already installed/setup:

Does the 'upgrade' ape all my settings?

I have read here that I will need to wait for new NVidia drivers to come out, then go through the hassle of figuring out how to install these. I'm guessing I need to uninstall my 'old' drivers (as per nvidia's readme) *before* I would install the new ones?

My Logitech mouse just needed a bit of tweaking to get working in X, in XF86Config. Will this setting be gone?

I *just* finished figuring out how to compile/install/blah some drivers (http://opensource.creative.com) for my SB Live! 5.1 Platinum. Will these needed to be uninstalled before I 'upgrade'? Or perhaps removed and reinstalled *after* the 'upgrade'?

Hope someone can answer these, and lend a calming hand. Thanks!

Re:Blimey.

Here is your parachute and here is the manual.

Welcome to Linux.

redhat apt-get up2date

Great timing, i *just* switched over my kde to kde3.1 via apt-get. I'm not really sure how I feel about redhat's odd way of grabbing their revenue stream. I do like the fact that they have a slew of people paid working on the code but the up2date thing makes me really unhappy. I'm very close to making a redhat wrapper (in the same way that mandrake was a redhat wrapper at some point) that is basically redhat/rpm compatibility based but w/out some of the annoying revenue stream add-ons. The obvious one is that is officially moving redhat over to apt [freshrpms.net] Right now there are only a few redhat apt-mirrors, but I would be more than willing to host a mirror and it will easily allow us and anyone else to keep the security updates at least "up2date" w/out paying per year per node. The other thing to look at is synaptic [freshrpms.net]which is also a really nice gui for apt as well and puts what i've always liked about debian on the redhat platform.

Also redhat doesn't seem to be doing very well w/ kde. I am not sure whether it is because kde3.0 was really buggy or something happened w/ the 7.3->8.0 transition but I wouldn't mind a redhat that was "un-unified." At the very least, a kde/konqueror that was usable then, since many people think the unified thing is a good thing :)

Anyway maybe talking to a few people and seeing if it would be possible to collect a cd of non-gpl but "open" developer software (Kylix 3, intel compilers 6.0 (kind of a weird license)) would also be nice addons.

At the very least I think defaulting/forking redhat to include apt ,synaptic and having a slew of decent apt-mirror sites would be an obvious and simple fix
the security updating issue w/ the current incarnation of redhat. Its also I think obvious that redhat will never release the up2date server source and have obvious reasons for not incorporating apt into the offical distribution so it may require the redhat' wrapper trick to get apt in there.

In any case, i'm curious as to what you guys think, one the one hand i think its a bit "assholish" as it deprives them of one of their obvious revenue streams, on the other hand I think for those of us who run clusters or whatnot or even want to auto-redistribute custom software onto our own nodes having access to the equivalent of our own up2date software (which apt is a better version of to be honest) is a reasonable task, and furthermore wrapping around redhat (like mandrake did) is somewhat what open source is all about as well, especially as redhat and redhat-compatible rpms/source(i.e. ati/nvidia/vmware drivers) is a bit ubiquitous.

-bloosqr

Seems strange

I bought Redhat 8.0 a few weeks ago (it had been out for some time before that, of course) and have been pretty impressed with the completeness of the package and the work they have done on adding some consistency to the configuration apps bundled.

However, I can't really see what Redhat are going to put in this release to justify a +1 version upgrade.

I agree with other posters that frequent version changes will threaten the release of 'industry standard' apps on the RH Linux platform, and as such Linux in general because of the perceived volatility of the environment.

However, strong sales of 8.0 might have given Redhat the impression that consumers look favourably on 'integer' releases, when really I think 8's popularity was almost entirely due to the well-publicised 'out of the box' antialiased fonts and UI work. If it was called 7.4 it would still have been very popular for these reasons.

It would be nice to see Redhat give a clear rationale behind it's numbering scheme and clear up the confusion that obviously reigns in this area.

why do I feel like we're heading down a bad path?

It just really seems like redhat is trying to become the next M$. Obviously in a few months they're going to end free updates, and now this crap. So basically now we're going to have reinstall redhat every couple of months to stay up to date, becuase they're no longer going to to update their products that are a year old, and it seems that with every release they are going to break binary compatitbility. Please, someone point me in a sane direction for a good easy to update linux distro. I really can't decided what I want to run. I was thinking redhat 8.1, but I'm not sure if I want to deal with them much longer. I may give debian another shot, and hmmmmm FreeBSD 4.8 supposed to come out today....very tempting. I want to hear from people, what are you running, what do you like. Please help me out! P.S. I'm not afraid of the command line and a ports system would be very nice.

Hmmmm,

This means that, going by the "never use a .0 RH convention", the latest stable release will still be 7.3.

End of Life blues.

Well another nail in the coffin.

RH8 has an EOL of 12/31/03 and this new version will give me an EOL of 03/31/04. I got several clients running RH 7&8 that I was looking at moving off to other distros or I upgrade NOW to RH9 and delay the next "forced" upgrade for 3 months. This is not going to encourage me to stay with RH. We need longer EOL times.

Sucks for RHCEs

I got certified at 7.2. Going to 9 this quick makes my certification go out, meaning I will need to shell out about $1000 to take the onsite proficiency tests again.

I am not overly pleased about this. The changes from 7.2 to 8.0 were not overly significant in my opinion, and 9.0 isn't going to be that different from 8.0. How could it be? There has not been enough time between them for major kernel changes or radical security modelling to alter, etc.

RedHat != Microsoft

Please don't start comparing RedHat to Microsoft... There are some truths that can clear up a lot of these misconceptions...

1) RedHat releasing this as a major version number is consistent with their numbering schemes in the past and is likely not a marketing plot. RedHat does major number versioning when binary compatibility is broken between versions. The Native POSIX Thread Libraries used in the latest beta Phoebe broke binary compatibility with a lot of applications. Thus, a new major number is warranted.

2) RedHat has an interesting challenge in that it must balance the "release early, release often" philosophy to satisfy those of us who like having cutting edge distros with the need for corporations to have some longevity in their releases. RedHat has found a good balance here. These consumer releases are going to continue to be released every six months to satisfy those who want its raw power. They will continue to be free, and RHN update services will continue to be free (though recently they've asked for about ten seconds of your time to complete a five question marketing survey). These six-month releases will continue to have same QA process as always. RedHat is willing to continue to invest so much into these freely downloadable versions because the feedback they get from them helps them work on the slower release versions. Redhat has said this more [redhat.com] than [redhat.com] once [redhat.com] during a recent thread on the phoebe list.

Please don't start villifying RedHat. They do a lot of good for the whole Linux community, pay many of the best developers of our favorite projects, and give Linux a wider acceptance in the RealWorld (tm) which helps all of us.

-jag

Official explanation

From Matt Wilson on phoebe-list: [redhat.com]

But there's something a bit more fundamental that I want people to be
aware of. In the past we would never have tackled something as
massive and invasive as a new threads implementation just after a ".0"
release (in this case, 8.0). We were able to do this, and bring this
great new technology to a mass audience, because we've changed the way
we consider technology to incorporate in Red Hat Linux. In the past
we would have felt it necessary to wait a while for a ".0" release
because we had to support a series of releases for years.

With the introduction of the full family of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
product we now have the flexibility to incorporate the best technology
that both the Open Source communities and Red Hat have to offer when
they're ready, instead of having to hold back.

/dev/null ?

did anyone else notice the sender and reply-to addresses? they're both [e-mail] whereas normal redhat emails are from rhn-admin.

early april's fool?

New Versioning Scheme: Where to after 9?

Yes, the next major release of Red Hat Linux will be Red Hat 9 [redhat.com], but:

Something that nobody so far has picked up on, is that this is just the start of an entirely new versioning scheme. Red Hat's operating systems manager, Matt Wilson, has suggested that the release following 9 may not be 9.1 or 10, but rather something entirely different [redhat.com]. This makes sense in the light of Red Hat's recent announcement of its Enterprise range [eweek.com]. I guess Red Hat Linux may no longer exist in its current form, but rather branch into Red Hat Linux Enterprise and Red Hat Linux Personal, with a new version numbering scheme to boot, maybe starting again at 1, or maybe even based on the year it was released in.

Matt Wilson explains

https://listman.redhat.com/pipermail/phoebe-list/2 003-March/004919.html

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 03:45:26PM -0500, William Hooper wrote:
> > Red Hat 9.0? What happened to 8.1?
>
> Binary compatibility. RH always goes to x.0 when they don't preserve
> binary compatibility. Now you know why some people (like me) think it was
> silly to be calling it RH 8.1 beta in the newsgroups.

In the past, this was indeed the case. Red Hat Linux 9's
incorporation of NPTL does mean that certain applications that
function on older versions of Red Hat Linux (like 8.0) will not work
without intervention on Red Hat Linux 9. For example, some Java JVMs
do not work properly because they make certain assumptions about the
thread model that are no longer true. Most of these applications can
still be used by specifying that you wish the older thread libraries
to be used through LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1 and LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5.

But there's something a bit more fundamental that I want people to be
aware of. In the past we would never have tackled something as
massive and invasive as a new threads implementation just after a ".0"
release (in this case, 8.0). We were able to do this, and bring this
great new technology to a mass audience, because we've changed the way
we consider technology to incorporate in Red Hat Linux. In the past
we would have felt it necessary to wait a while for a ".0" release
because we had to support a series of releases for years.

With the introduction of the full family of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
product we now have the flexibility to incorporate the best technology
that both the Open Source communities and Red Hat have to offer when
they're ready, instead of having to hold back.

One example of this sort of thing that caused a lot of negative
feedback in the past was the delayed incorporation of Python 2.0 in
the Red Hat Linux 7.x series. In the new model we would be able to
get the new releases of major subsystems like Python in the
distribution as soon as they have been proven stable.

I hope this sheds a little light on "why 9 and not 8.1".

Cheers,

Matt
[e-mail]
--
Matt Wilson
Manager, Base Operating Systems
Red Hat, Inc.

Re:Spank Spank

Start->Windows Update

Umm I have seen that break more servers than a Linux upgrade ever did..