United Linux?
You must access this resource using the appropriate method.29349 total votes.
Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 15962 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
Perfect option... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perfect option... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perfect option... (Score:2)
Redhat and its variants also dominate in East Asia, for example.
Re:SuSE (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that Caldera seems to be the leadership of the UnitedLinux distro will likely be its downfall.
In my opinion, SuSE was the only big player, or the only one worth a crap anyway in the UL partnership.
Not to mention the fact that if you want to run an enterprise class database server using Oracle, Larry Ellison has pretty much left the guesswork out of that for you.
Use Redhat or suffer the support consequences.
So that pretty much decides it for me since the company I work for is a big Oracle shop.
Re:SuSE (Score:2)
the mcse's are no different really. just because they point and click all day, doesn't mean they can't put up a MSFT system including probably web servers, email servers, file servers, etc.
now how about the RHCE? some of these guys maybe network engineers, but my guess is that there are LOTS who are commonly known in the cube farm as the sysadmin.
Re:SuSE (Score:2)
I said "in this particular case" which refers only to the vendors in the UnitedLinux partnership.
Additionally, I had nothing bad to say about SuSE beyond that, in my opinion, they are the strongest of the vendors involved in the partnership. It is the weakness of the other vendors that in my opinion will be the end of UnitedLinux.
My particular choice of distros is Redhat, for many reasons. I've been using them for years, they are focused on the corporate environment, and now the partnership with Oracle was the icing on the cake.
I have evaluated SuSE and found it to be an excellent distribution. I just don't have any compelling reason to change.
Uh, no... (Score:5, Informative)
Red Hat is a "standard" much like Microsoft is a "standard"... Just because it's popular, doesn't make it a standard, or even a good idea. It's just popular.
And to repeat what has been said here many times, Red Hat is not as popular outside of the United States as other distros. That pretty much kills the reason to make Red Hat the standard by which other distros are measured.
I personally think that United Linux is not a bad idea. It's another step towards some form of Linux Standards Base implementation, which is definately needed if we want Linux to succeed on the corporate level.
Re:Uh, no... (Score:2)
Sure, standardisation is good, as long as it doesn't get in the way. Popularity "helps" to standardise something, because you basically have something many people agree on. I said many. A standard becomes a standard when _ALL_ people directly or indirectly involved agree on it :)
And I like debian more than RedHat (gotta love apt... secret cow powers.. m000). Although I "standardise" on BSD myself with just a sprinkle of Solaris and a tad of Debian Linux.
Point: Single UNIX specification (SUSv1), that's the bare minimum. If RedHat and all the other Linux distributions pointed their collective noses _that_ way, I'd be a happy geek.
Re:Uh, no... (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that sortta the definition of "standard": something that a majority of people use?
Oh no, a standard is (as mentioned earlier) defined by a standards body (like ECMA). Standards are normally well thought through and is generally a Good Thing(tm). What you are talking about is a de facto standard which normally appear because something has immediate appeal to the general public. This has been shown repeatedly (think VHS versus Betamax, add MS bashing here too if you like) to be a Bad Thing(tm) because de facto standards more than once are technically inferior to the standards.
at least one thing about UL: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the point of Linux? (Score:2)
The point to Linux is that it's Free (as in speech). It's competition that is finally getting that giant in Redmond to create better products (subject to opionion), etc.
Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:4, Insightful)
Where Linux goes as far as where the money is concerned is going to be decided by what happens with the seperate spinoffs. Everyone has been waiting to see how Linux is going to make it into the real mainstream business world, where people dont take chances on what they buy, and this is it. Open Source is going to get even more interesting over the next year or so.
Linux has no problem getting mainstream attention. To get normal, white collar people to actually adopt it and pay green to support it is another thing. Both the UnitedLinux and UnbreakableLinux drives are going to turn this corner for Linux. I find it interesting, that both spinoffs are going more "custom" oriented in their own ways. Its definetly not all about the GPL. Its about cash, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'd love to hear RMS' (not a screaming fan, not an opposer, find him interesting) opinion on the whole "Linux goes big business" (or so I call it) trend in the last few months.
Fun Times! Fun Times!
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if that doesn't deserve a +1 Funny, I don't know what does.
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:3, Insightful)
Well along similar lines could you really say Linux is done yet? Neither project is ever going to be something you could call 'finished'.
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:2)
>
>Well, if that doesn't deserve a +1 Funny, I don't
> know what does.
Hey, don't laugh. Mozilla 1.0 shipped. That proves that _nothing_ is impossible.
;)
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired [Slightly OT] (Score:2)
GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write and run C programs [google.com]
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:2, Informative)
Neither was Linux itself. Sure, the GNU tools were used to develop the kernel, but that's not the same thing at all. Heck, Linux wasn't even GPL for a long time. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's the way it was.
That small correction aside, I think you make some good points.
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:2)
Re:Definetly not GNU inspired (Score:2)
And here's one of the steps: reduce the amount of choices the customer has to make (it's good to leave some, but having 8 or 9 choices makes it very hard for the customer to decide.) This would fall along under the 'ease of use' category, I suppose, which is where the Linux development needs to start focusing on a little more.
Definitely a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, perhaps actually coming up with a new distro called "United Linux" and trying to push it as the "standard" in Linux isn't such a good thing.... I'm not saying that specifically this one distribution is the right or best one, but it is a step in the right direction.
You can curse Microsoft all you want, but they did a great thing for the user. They standardized the computer desktop. Thanks to Microsoft it is no longer a long, difficult, and involved process to install your average piece of software or hardware. A complete idiot can throw in a new HDD or CD-ROM, and be reasonably assured that it will work. A complete idiot can walk into a store and pick up a piece of software or hardware, and assuming that they've got the required ports/slots/whatever, they can again be reasonably assured that it will work. With Linux, that assumption just isn't there. Not only might a program/device not work with Linux, but it may not work with your specific distribution of Linux.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Um... Last time I checked, installing Mandrake, Redhat or SuSE had better results with hardware than Windows XP.
To be honest, I run systems admin for a small children's charity. People say they want windows, and that is what they are given. Now, in the grand scheme of things, licences aren't so horrible when you get them in bulk. My trouble is having to perpetually triage the systems, because windows doesn't like the hardware, ACPI support plays up, USB breaks, etc. etc.
To be absolutely frank, the time I have just spent over the past few months fixing one system of windows issues has cost the charity more than the machine itself is worth. It's not something I like trying to sort out day after day, but it isn't something that we can just say "Right, let's go and buy two machines per user, so if windows breaks on one, we have backups".
Admittedly, we aren't a corporate environment. We have staff doing so many different tasks that these machines really do see some action, all different forms of software, things being installed and removed all the time.
I have to say, though, I am growing very tired of people booting their machines in the morning and finding that their network connections/browsers/copies of word/e-mail apps don't work properly any more, for no fault of theirs. I want to be able to stop saying "Windows just does these things sometimes...". At the end of the day, people in the world at large have a hard time with computers, with problems such as these, and they do blame us and the machines, and rightly so. An operating system should remain in the same state until a user does something, and then it should respond to the instruction, do the task and return to the original state. It shouldn't break on a whim.
I'm just tired and sad, because at the end of the day, I need to be paid to survive and continue to work for these people, and yet every hour I spend working on trying to fix windows is money taken away from helping kids. It's that simple.
Needless to say, I'm talking to my manager about testing Linux for some desktops after the summer, when KOffice 1.2 comes out with the new Office filters. We need stability that Windows can't give us. Fast.
Microsoft talk about Total Cost of Ownership. I can show them TCO going into my bank account every month, and I'm ashamed. I don't want to have to do this anymore.
I want to be able to set up systems and develop them to help my people work faster, better and to a higher quality, to their satisfaction and to the benefit of the kids, not sorting their machines having fits and trying to stick plasters over the broken bits.
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:2)
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:2)
Admittedly, we aren't a corporate environment. We have staff doing so many different tasks that these machines really do see some action, all different forms of software, things being installed and removed all the time.
Heh, as if this is any better for Linux than for Windows. I use both, so I can attest to my personal experiences. With Windows, the installers generally work pretty well. It's the uninstallers and upgraders that are often horribly broken. With both systems, your hard drive tends to mysteriously fill up over time and you find yourself running short of space. I go on occasional purging sprees, and I find this easier to do on Windows (with the exception of the registry, of course). With Mandrake, I tried uninstalling a package that I didn't need and it went and silently uninstalled an important dependency. It's no better, really.
And as for hardware, I've had problems in both cases. My Windows computers have typically had video card problems. My Linux machine (a laptop) had a horrible time with ethernet PC cards. I must have rebuilt my kernel 20 times trying to get it to work. I finally gave up and installed a prebuilt kernel. It doesn't work very well, and there's a few apps I still can't run (e.g. dhcpclient), but I'm too afraid to build it again. Now I don't know what you mean about things randomly stopping working in Windows. I have issues, but they are consistent. My PPPoE and IPsec drivers don't get along very well and there are some specific workarounds that I have to use. But on Linux, my ethernet drivers don't work properly either, and I have to manually load and unload the modules to get them to work. I don't have problems with things that randomly stop working on either system.
Now I'm a professional computer programmer and I'm technically savvy, but I have very little patience for troubleshooting hardware, reading mailing lists, FAQs, etc. I tend to find a workaround and stick with it. In my experience, setting up my Windows system was easier than installing Linux. Then again, I'm still using Windows NT 4.0, which shows you how much I hate upgrading.
-a
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks to Microsoft it is no longer a long, difficult, and involved process to install your average piece of software or hardware.
Thank who?
A complete idiot can walk into a store and pick up a piece of software or hardware, and assuming that they've got the required ports/slots/whatever, they can again be reasonably assured that it will work.
You've just perfectly described my Apple IIGs from 1986. Not to mention the Macintosh.
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:2)
You've just perfectly described my Apple IIGs from 1986. Not to mention the Macintosh.
No, he's talking about the popularization of computers. And you have Microsoft to thank for that, not Apple. Ironically, Microsoft and Intel have always been the computer "for the rest of us", as Apple's slogan went. Beyond the Apple II, Apple has always been the high-priced computer for the arrogant "elite". Apple clearly had ease of use advantages in the old days, but that is irrelevent to the fact that almost no one used tham or even saw them except in very limited industries.
If Microsoft didn't exist, Apple would still be selling Macintoshes for $10,000 -- for the "low cost" model.
Re:Definitely a good idea (Score:2)
I understand the reasoning behind the simplification of software, and agree with the principal, but I have to point out that by giving the complete idiot an equal footing that you're degrading the experience for lots of folks. The only winner is the vendor who sells more licenses. The users, to include incomplete idiots, still require alot of training on how to use actual applications. Who cares if they can use a mouse. I'm more concerned that they're capable of doing the job they were hired to do. Part of modern jobs is knowing how to use the tools of the trade.
Besides, lots of things are idiot-proof, like your car with an automatic transmission. But are you going to let an idiot drive it? Or let the idiot at the garage plug it in and run the diagnostics?
But Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good or Bad Thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we could still all have our favorite flavors, but software producers could build everything to the same packaging system and know that it will work with any 'Standard Linux' system.
Kinda like the POSIX standard or others of the same vein.
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning what exactly? What software is installed? Where it's installed? The specifics of the configuration files? We already have FHS and FSSTD to handle paths and locations, and most distros are compliant or nearly so by this time. As for what's installed and how it's configured, I have two responses - 1, that's a place for the different vendors to distinguish their offerings from one another, and 2, I intend to exercise pretty thorough control over both regardless of what I use for a starting point.
a standard packaging system that can be used across the board
I've yet to see a complete linux distro of any flavour which does not include tar in even the most basic install. ar and cpio are also included by default in most distributions. And the two most common "complicated" packaging systems, rpm and deb, can be used on any system. In fact I know for sure RPM is used at least on Solaris as well. Nothing prevents you from choosing whatever packaging system you like, or using packages of a different type from those of your distribution vendor. It may be less convenient (dependency management for example) but it will still work.
Kinda like the POSIX standard or others of the same vein.
Actually POSIX has already standardised virtually all of this. The only OS that comes close to 100% compliance is HPUX. Personally I find that it shows the true ugliness and hackishness of the standards quite well.
Why do we spend so much time worrying about this? There are two reasons usually cited:
IMHO the first is an artifact of an undesirable user base. If you are not comfortable with building and installing software from source, you should consider using a different operating environment. The GNU system (here come the flames!) is intended to be used by people whose first value is freedom. It is not intended to be used by people who do not understand it or the value it provides. Want to download and run random binaries from the net? Use Windows.
The second problem isn't really a problem at all. Since when do I care what products someone else uses? My company uses whatever works best, and those of us with the skill to make that determination are allowed to do so without hindrance. If your company only uses products backed by big names, see what you can do to change the policy. Hint: focus on costs, and target the CFO. Obviously it's in a commercial vendor's best interests to expand its customer base, but that doesn't mean it's in my (a customer's) best interests to standardize on a product made for that sole purpose. After all, if it were then we'd use Windows, eh?
I daresay this will come to naught. Most of the players behind UL will be gone soon anyway.
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO the first is an artifact of an undesirable user base. If you are not comfortable with building and installing software from source, you should consider using a different operating environment.
It's amazing that people actually think this way, but well each to their own I guess.. But it really comes down to acceptance, if your quite happy using an obscure* system on your obscure computer hardware then keep advocating the bastardization of any usability features and so on. But please dont complain when company Xyz doesnt support your operating system with their new hareware, and definatly dont complain if you have to dual boot to play some new game because company Abc dropped support for Obscure OS Y!
Personally every small step made by Linux vendors to simplify and standardize Linuxis a Good Thing (TM) to me. Wide spread adoption has far far more benifits than most people would ever relise until they see them..
(* 'Obscure' is used not in reference to any particular operating system, incase you didnt notice.)
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:2, Insightful)
Who said that?
Many people prefer freedom but they aren't nerds. If we want the idea of free software to spread, we must make systems that can be used also by ordinary people. Otherwise free software will always remain marginal nerd thing.
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:2)
RPM is also used on AIX 5.1L, as part of the 'Linux toolkit'. You use it to install any parts of the Linux subsystem, exactly as you would on a regular native Linux distro.
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:2)
Hmmm... not in Solaris 8... I mean, I'm sure I could install it, but all my packages are Solaris packages installed with the pkg* tools.
Perhaps you just meant that it will run if installed. (why one would bother...)
Solaris 9 could be different.
Solaris 8 does come with an rpm2cpio tool, however.
Re:I'd prefer a 'Standard Linux' (Score:2)
One of the main advantages of Portage is that publishers of software does not have to re-package the software for this specific distro, all it takes is someone updating the .ebuild file and the new version is thus supported by Portage. This makes for really fast upgrade roll-outs.
As icing on the cake, it has config file protection, supports http, ftp, rsync and cvs for getting the files and everything gets personally compiled for You by a lot of really small and specially trained craftsmen, in the comfort of Your own computer! Does it get any better than that? :-)
Anagrams (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anagrams (Score:2, Funny)
Die Unix Lunt
(Lunt means puff of smoke)
United In Lux
(United in light)
Lend UNIX TUI
(TUI being text-user interface)
Duel Tin UNIX
(Sounds like a way to give it 350 extra HP like the coffee can muffler mod)
Duel Nit UNIX
(UNIX with two insect eggs)
Duel Unit Nix
(It kills both units)
Duel Int Unix
(It uses double a lot)
I Tuned In Lux
Nude Until IX
(You get dressed at 9)
I'm sure there's more out there for those more bored than I.
Another foogram (Score:4, Funny)
Missing one very important option..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing one very important option..... (Score:2, Informative)
Another missing option..... (Score:2)
Anything involving Love is a BAD idea.
Wasn't there a story about him on
Anagrams (Score:5, Funny)
I tuned linux
nil nut index
unix lute din
I exult in dun
unix unlited
nil nudie tux
Re:Anagrams (Score:2, Interesting)
``unix dilutent''. Or ``unix idle nut''. Says it all, don't it?
No? Okay, here's a nicer permutation: ``unix deli nut''.
Truth be told, the real anagram, the one with the hidden meaning for ``united linux'' is ``nix duel unit''. Now go figure :/
Re:Anagrams (Score:5, Funny)
I think that you really mean "idle unix nut". The ultimate goal of such a system is to make every sysadmin using United Linux an idle unix nut; the system is so good that the admin can sit around idle rather than having to fix stuff ;-)
unix idle nut (Score:2)
Although the thought of a unix based carburator boggles the mind.
Re:Anagrams (Score:5, Interesting)
I give up! I tried for half an hour to post a simple list of anagrams, but slashcode wouldn't let me. Here [208.190.208.89] is the list, and below you'll find a large chunk of ascii art that does not violate the lameness filter, despite being much less funny/informative/useful.
Aarhus Aaron Ababa aback abaft abandon abandoned abandoning abandonment abandons abase abased abasement abasements abases abash abashed abashes abashi
ng abasing abate abated abatement abatements abater abates abating Abba abb
e abbey abbeys abbot abbots Abbott abbreviate abbreviated abbreviates abbre
viating abbreviation abbreviations Abby abdomen abdomens abdominal abduct a
bducted abduction abductions abductor abductors abducts Abe abed Abel Abeli
an Abelson Aberdeen Abernathy aberrant aberration aberrations abet abets ab
etted abetter abetting abeyance abhor abhorred abhorrent abhorrer abhorring
abhors abide abided abides abiding Abidjan Abigail Abilene abilities abili
ty abject abjection abjections abjectly abjectness abjure abjured abjures a
bjuring ablate ablated ablates ablating ablation ablative ablaze able abler
ablest ably Abner abnormal abnor malities abnormality abnormally A
bo aboard abode abodes abolis h abolished abolisher abolish
ers abolishes abolishing a bolishment abolishments abolition ab
olitionist abolitionists abominable abominate aboriginal aborigine
aborigines abort aborted aborting abortion abortions abortive abortiv
ely aborts Abos abound abounded abounding abounds about above above
board aboveground abovementioned abrade abraded abrades abrading Abra
ham Abram Abrams Abramson abrasion abrasions abrasive abreaction abre
actions abreast abridge abridged abridges abridging abridgment abroad
abrogate abrogated abrogates abrogati ng abrupt abruptly abr
uptness abscess abscess ed absce sses abscissa abscissas ab
scond absconded abscond ing abs conds absence absences abse
nt absented absentee ab senteei sm absentees absentia absen
ting absently absentmin ded abs ents absinthe absolute abso
lutely absoluteness abs olutes a bsolution absolve absolved
absolves absolving abs orb abs orbed absorbency absorbent
absorber absorbing abso rbs abs orption absorptions absorpt
ive abstain abstained a bstaine r abstaining abstains abste
ntion abstentions absti nence ab stract abstracted abstract
ing abstraction abstrac tionism abstractionist abstraction
s abstractly abstractne ss abst ractor abstractors abstract
s abstruse abstruseness absurd absurdities absurdity absur
dly Abu abundance abund ant abu ndantly abuse abused abuses
abusing abusive abut a butment abuts abutted abutter abut
ters abutting abysmal a bysmal ly abyss abysses Abyssinia
Abyssinian Abyssinians acacia ac ademia academic academicall
y academics academies academy Acadia Acapulco accede acceded acc
edes accelerate accelerated accelerates accelerating acceleration accel
erations accelerator accelerators accelerometer accelerometers accent a
ccented accenting accents accentual accentuate accentuated accentuates
accentuating accentuation accept acceptability acceptable acceptably ac
ceptance acceptances accepted accepter accepters accepting acceptor accep
tors accepts access accessed accesses accessibility accessible accessib
ly accessing accession accessions accessories accessors accessory accid
ent accidental accidentally accidently accidents acclaim acclaimed a
cclaiming acclaims acclamation acclimate acclimated acclimates accl
imating acclimatization acclimatized accolade accolades accommod
ate accommodated accommodates accommodating accommoda tion accommo
dations accompanie d accompanies accompaniment accompani ments ac
companist accompani sts accompany accompanying accomplic e accomp
lices accomplish accomplished accomplisher accom plishers accom
plishes accomplishing accomplishment accomplish ments accord acc
ordance accorded accorder accorders accordi ng accordingly a
ccordion accordions acco rds acco st accosted accosting a
ccosts account accountabili ty accountable accountably
accountancy accountant accounta nts accounted accounting accou
nts Accra accredit accreditation accreditations accredited accretion
accretions accrue accrued accrues accruing acculturate acculturated
acculturates acculturating acculturation accumulate accumulated accu
mulates accumulating accumulation accumulations accumulator accumul
ators accuracies accuracy a ccurate ac curately accurateness ac
cursed accusal accusation acc usations accusative accuse ac
cused accuser accuses accusing ac cusingly accustom accustomed accu
stoming accustoms ace aces acetate acetone acetylene Achaean Achaeans ache
ached aches achievable achieve achieved achievement achievements achiever a
chievers achieves achieving Achilles aching acid acidic acidities acidity a
cidly acids acidulous Ackerman Ackley acknowledge acknowledgeable acknowled
ged acknowledgement acknowledgements acknowledger acknowledgers acknowledge
s acknowledging acknowledgment acknowledgments acme acne acolyte acolytes a
corn acorns acoustic acoustical acoustically acoustician acoustics acquaint
acquaintance acquaintances acquainted acquainting acquaints acquiesce acqu
iesced acquiescence acquiescent acquiesces acquiescing acquirable acquire a
cquired acquires acquiring acquisition acquisitions acquisitive acquisitive
ness acquit acquits acquittal acquitted acquitter acquitting acre acreage a
Re:Anagrams (Score:4, Interesting)
As an aside, if any of you want to make slashdot-compliant ascii art like that above, have a look at this [208.190.208.89] location. I'm sorry if this is offtopic (moderator hint) but I'm a little upset at the absurdity of this situation.
Re:Anagrams (Score:2)
How would you spell "nudie pic's"?
Re:Anagrams (Score:3, Funny)
Without the apostrophe.
Linux Unite? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Linux Unite? (Score:2)
Re:Linux Unite? (Score:2, Funny)
Linux Standard Base, sort of? (Score:2, Insightful)
The down-side is that stability and flexibility tend to work against each other. A well defined and stable base definition makes change harder.
where's graveyheadnix? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:where's graveyheadnix? (Score:2)
Re:where's graveyheadnix? (Score:2)
I rolled my own, and it runs everything redhat does with no problems.
UnitedLinux isn't about you, it's about the other 99% of the Linux users. You know, the kind which likes a two-click install, automatically configured X+KDE and lots of software downloadable from the internet.
As others have mentioned, there's always RedHat for those less technically inclined...
So SuSE et al should just give up their business?
Re:where's graveyheadnix? (Score:2)
Going through that process reinforced my knowledge of the OS by a factor of ten, and it only took one weekend to get it started, and about 8-10 hours since then (almost a year ago) compiling apps... Not a bad trade off, 4 days worth of work for an intimate knowledge of the file system layout and
working knowledge of every app I have installed on my machine.
Re:where's graveyheadnix? (Score:2)
Perhaps its because I don't view a computer as just as a tool, but a platform for my own creativity. Therefore it is an extension of myself, and should be treated with the same fondness any artist, carpenter, or chef has for their own toolset.
Do you ever watch that show "Iron Chef"? There was this one where they came to the US and had a battle against U.S. chef Bobby Flay. Flay totally insulted the Japaneese guests by jumping on top of his cutting board and generally acting like a complete ass. I can't remember the exact quote (it was a translation anyway) but the gist of Iron Chef Morrimoto's comment was that to a chef, his cutting board is sacred. See the parallel?
This thread started as a simple karma whore, and I didn't mean to turn it into a philosophical debate, but there you go.
I of course read a bunch of documentation on many of the software packages I installed, so I don't see how that is any different that reading redhat's aggregate documentation.
Given the chance to go back in time, I would build my own system again in a heartbeat. As Metallica once said "no remorse, no regrets"...
standards are great... (Score:5, Funny)
CowboyNeal Linux - how many users if this happened (Score:2, Funny)
Good idea, but I don't trust it (Score:3, Interesting)
P.S. Shouldn't the Linux Standard Base be dealing with this stuff? I realize most of their work is lower level (fileutils, libc, etc.) but maybe they could create several concentric standards?
Bullet points (Score:2)
- Oxygen is good.
- Competition is bad.
- I like Jello.
"Hmm... Take out the 'competition' one." -- the PHB.Best Anagram (Score:3, Insightful)
The Raven
Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:4, Interesting)
People say that you don't need to reboot Linux as often as a Microsoft OS.
However, after seeing many-a-RPM based distro crash, or better yet, when I see my fellow Linux advocates repeatedly talk about "installing Linux"... I wonder what is wrong with the picture.
Sure you don't need to reboot a Redhat system very often, you just need to reinstall the OS on a regular basis. Sure installing Redhat is easy, but rebooting a Windows 98 box is even easier.
My point is that Linux is supposed to be stable, and you should only have to install Linux once and never reboot it, let alone reinstall it! As far as I can tell, there is only one Linux distro that does this. Debian GNU/Linux. Not only does it do all that, it has tons of features, software, flexibility, and its all completely free!
So take your Redcrap defacto standards, your LSB, and your Universal Linux crap out of here. Debian isn't owned by a company, but is instead designed, created, and controlled by an independent consortium of software engineers from all over the world. If anything should be used as the base standard for a Linux distro, it should be Debian GNU/Linux, and some Linux distros are already using the Debian standard as their basis: Libranet, Omoikane, ESware, LinEx, Lindows, Xandros, and DeMuDi.
Of course, if you don't want to go with one of those commercial Linux distros, you can just download or order online a copy of plain-jain Debian Linux. Sure the installation requires a little more work than the other distros, but Debian only needs to be installed once. You can apt-get your way to newer versions, with greater ease than rebooting a Windows 98 box
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
The beauty of Linux (and open-source software in general) is that you can do with it as you please. I like Debian. It's an clean, elegant, distro that really sticks to the roots of free software. But then, I also like the ease of use of a nice Mandrake installation.
You see, with Linux, I can build my system however I want to. If someone has the urge to roll their own, so be it. If someone wants to just use their computer with little hassle, they can use Red Hat or Mandrake.
I think we should keep "Redcrap" and all the other distributions out there. Isn't Free Software about giving people a choice?
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:5, Interesting)
However, what bugs me is upgrading. I've recently upgraded from Debian Potato to Woody two machines, with almost no downtime during the upgrade (aside from that firewall one which i upgraded to 2.4 for iptables which surely needed a reboot), almost no broken stuff, and everything was done over a remote SSH connection.
I doubt any other distribution could give me such impressive results. I didn't even have to reboot! (unless i wanted to upgrade the kernel as well) Granted there must be some way to do the same with other distros (i've heard somewhere a guy was able to switch from Redhat to Debian without rebooting...), but only Debian being able to do it with just a few simple commands and giving me enough confidence to do it remotely, saving me the hassle to get physical access to it.
I know I'm sorta biased towards Debian, anybody to tell me not only Debian can do the things mentioned above?
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
Boot the CD...
enough said. Reboot before you even start. Debian: apt-get dist-upgrade
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
As for crashing, well, Redhat and now Mandrake do both lock up on my desktop about once a week. I'm pretty sure it's a hardware problem. But once a week is still about 10 times better than Windows 98 SE (which I used before). And Windows 2000 won't even install on my hardware. So for me, Linux is a winner.
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
You know what's funny? This is obviously flamebait, but it gets moderated up. However, if you make a single negative statement about the "in" Linux distributions, you get moderated down into oblivion.
Not that I'm complaining. Merely pointing this out for all the trolls, so that we get more interesting Debian posts than the standard "rah! rah! I love Debian! Redhat sux!!"
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you don't need to reboot a Redhat system very often, you just need to reinstall the OS on a regular basis.
Huh? Obviously, you've never ran Redhat. I'm using the same base install that I have been since RedHat 6.0, the only major things I've done are upgrades. (Now running Redhat 7.2.) Before then, I was using Slackware.
The only time my system has frozen is when I installed the nVidia graphics driver (which I compiled myself)... and it wasn't a hard freeze, just the display. Telnetted in from another machine and killed the X server.
I have never wiped and reinstalled the machine.
Since you are so knowledgable on the subject, perhaps you could tell us clueless Redhat users why this would be necessary?
Unless you've run Redhat, I suggest you do not give testimony about its performance and stability, as you don't have any basis for comparison. Sorry.
I don't make guesses about what your experience is running Debian. I'm sure it's a fine distribution, despite you Stallmanists.
Re:Debian - Redhat (Score:2)
Anyway, did you have to reinstall Redhat all the time when you were running it, like the original poster said?
Personally, the most stable machine I have right now is running Solaris-sparc32.
My Linux boxes all run Redhat 7.2, with the one crash I described in the parent to your post.
I've got a couple Windows boxen (for games) and they run pretty well, too with Win98 SE. Part of that is just due to experience. One of them hasn't been reinstalled for almost 2 years now, and runs great, even after changing mainboards. Know how to build a machine, and know how to maintain one.
I wrote a whole paper on system stability, aimed at people building their own machines.
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:5, Interesting)
This is even more useful for the Debian "stable" series. Every few weeks, I log into my firewall machine and do an "update/upgrade". If there has been a security update to a daemon, APT will automagically download, install, and restart the affected program. If I want to find out exactly what it's doing, I can. Most of the install scripts will even do nice things like not overwriting customized configuration files in
Every time I have used "rpm -i package", I have wondered "WTF just happened".
Now, if you had to manage say a computer lab full of machines (maybe 100 or so), you would definately want to standardize on something that allows good multiple consecutive unattended upgrades.
Actually you can do that in Debian as well by turning down the interactivity level for apt-get upgrade and making it a cron task. You can set up one master machine that all the others look for to grab packages from.
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
(Can't speak about the Debian side, never used it) I use Redhat since 4.2 (Biltmore), circa fall 1997. The other releases I installed since then are 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2 (yes, I skipped 7.0, and I haven't upgraded to 7.3 yet). The majority of those upgrades were simply mount cdrom; rpm -Uvh *.rpm. Of course, I also changed quite a bit of hardware since then, so there's been a couple full installs on new HDDs. And no, using the old one wasn't always an option as sometimes it was still in use in the older machine, and anyway the newer HDD is faster, so why not use it? What I'm saying is that in my experience, RH has been pretty easy to upgrade between each release, although I didn't choose the "boot CD, select upgrade" path.
Every time I have used "rpm -i package", I have wondered "WTF just happened".
There are scripts in a
Most of the install scripts will even do nice things like not overwriting customized configuration files in
If the
Re:Debian: install once, reboot once (Score:2)
How about non-redundant Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't believe all the redundancy out there! Don't the Gnome and KDE programmers get frustrated duplicating each others work? I don't get it. Linux is in its infancy and therefore has the option of dropping everything for the sake of being The Best.
At this rate, it will be nothing but the most fragmented. This will alienate the user base.
Divided we fall.
Re:How about non-redundant Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a fundamental difference between balkanized standards and balkanized clients. While it is a terrible thing to have a large variety of competing standards, because it harms the end user (by making them incompatible with the other factions), a variety of clients, which all play nicely with the standards, is only helpful: there is the freedom of choice, without the confusion of incompatibility.
Consider the following, for example:
- There are tons of different DVD players, with different features, but they all play DVDs, so long as the DVDs comply with the DVD spec
- There are tons of text editors, and many have large, devoted user bases (emacs and vim spring to mind), but at the end of the day, they'll both produce ASCII text
- There are tons of different models of cars, but they can all drive on public roadways
All of the above are examples of standards done right: you can choose whatever client you want according to how well its feature set suits you, not whether its format is the most widely supported.Standards mean the users win.
Re:How about non-redundant Linux? (Score:2)
umm... I am pretty sure the Debian was around before Red Hat. Also, a deb may be useless on a redhat system, but on Debian is the best way to go. If you don't understand why, then you obviously have never run debian before. It wasn't until I used a Debain system that I really understood how it worked.
Please don't comment on things you know nothing about.
Re:How about non-redundant Linux? (Score:2)
For some reason I had alot of problems with RPM's - don't know why. Seemed to clear up on the 3rd installation attempt though.
However, I am *Extremely* pleased with ipcop [ipcop.org]. Very, very nice distro with a ton of great features. Saved me money on buying a router that's for sure.
I figure I will give linux another try here in a few days (probably going to use Mandrake or Red Hat this time).Every program I use is Open-Source or available for linux anyways.
have we learned nothing from the last linux poll? (Score:2, Informative)
dont you guys see that us slackware users are going to keep bitching until we get respect?
Re:have we learned nothing from the last linux pol (Score:2, Funny)
... or until you get a reputation for bitching and whining.
Oops, it's already happening.
FWIW, I voted for Debian
Of COURSE it's a good idea. (Score:2)
Nude Til Unix (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm... Slackware Rocks! (Score:2, Funny)
Slack rocks. Everyone should learn off of Slack.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Standards thread (Score:2, Insightful)
Package management doesn't really need to be standardized in my opinion. To be honest, there are better packaging methods for different users. IE: An advanced user will want control over the source, but a distribution might put a graphical front end to portions of the source tree. A beginner will certainly want just a graphical tool, and no minding of drivers and such. You could pretty much do something akin to installshield, but online (such as Red Carpet), the real difference being that the presentation needs to be better. Most of these tools BARRAGE the user with software that they know nothing about. A user would be better suited browsing websites, and getting a link that says something like "go be root and do this."
United Linus? (Score:2)
Obviously it's a good idea. (Score:2)
uh, good idea - bad execution? (Score:2)
Hand Rolled Linux (Score:2)
It really does teach you an awful lot about Linux though. Linus copied an education tool, Minix, and with Gentoo it's come a full circle.
Phillip.
The new united linux pledge: (Score:2)
of the united linux of geekdom,
and to the opensource for which it stands,
one file system, under Torvalds, uncrackable,
with freedom to code for all.
-Adam
Forgot an option... (Score:2)
Sounds Like Soccer! (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds more like soccer hooligans yelling "There's only one United!"
-skurk
Re:tower of babel (Score:3, Informative)
New /. business model (Score:2, Offtopic)
Judging by the number of trolls and FP attempts, there are probably 200,000 nerds here who would pay $5/month for that privilege - that's a revenue stream of $12m/year right there, more than their entire revenue [forbes.com] for 2001! Soon, VA will be wondering what on earth they were thinking, trying to use Sourceforge as the way to rescue the company... My advice: buy LNUX now!
Re:Cowboy Neal linux (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cowboy Neal linux (Score:2)
Re:Cowboy Neal linux (Score:2)
What's the big deal? CowboyNeal is almost as big as the CN Tower; I think the association is quite appropriate!
Re:Two reason to not use United Linux (Score:2, Funny)