Is Red Hat the Next Microsoft? 341
Patrick Dunn
writes "On ZDNET's Smart Reseller they have a story
about Red Hat maybe being a mini-Microsoft by it's
business practices." I'd guess that the 2 most common
conspiracy theories that pop into my mail box are 1. MS-Linux
and 2. Red Hat becoming the next MS. What do you think?
Some good point(s) about the article... (Score:1)
1.) Red Hat should consider joining the LSB even if it doesn't agree entirely with it, at this point. If you don't like something, and you think you have a better way, present it to your peers. This seems to work extremely well in the Linux community. We have a low tolerance for BS. People in the movement have a much more clear vision of now and the future. Red Hat is probably holding up the acceptance of Linux a little by slowing the process of standardizing the Linux platform. Success cannot be had without at least a basic level of standardization. I urge Red Hat to just bite the bullet on this one, and find an agreeable solution.
2.) Red Hat should be able to make a certification standard for whatever they want. They create the RH distro, they know whats up (usually, damn suid bugs).
3.) I don't trust Ransom Love or Caldera as far as I could throw them. What have they really done for the free software movement? Granted, they are a business, but Red Hat's done far more for the community.
fsck redhat (Score:1)
Of course the Microsoft comparison is a bit drastic, but is it totally off base? I have it on good authority that some of the largest Linux-only computer resellers have exclusivity deals with RH. Perhaps these were struck by the reseller and not RH, but likely not. IOW, if you buy a computer from one of these companies, they are obligated to sell it with a copy of RedHAt Linux, and RH only.
Is that acceptible? Perhaps
-No big fan of RedHat
Who Cares (Score:1)
Divide and conquer (Score:1)
Caldera is whining big time here. RedHat has so far done the "Right Thing". They have released all their sources unlike Caldera which has pursued the policy of vendor lock-in. The reason that RedHat is popular is that RH has been open and done the right thing by the OSS community. I wonder if Microsoft paid Caldera to whine like this and create unseemly infighting. LSB? Where was Caldera for the past few years trying to work with vendors and coming up with these supposed standards? Now that RH has the publicity, Caldera wants to undercut it by spreading FUD.
Wake up Caldera and stop these shady tactics!
AC
Misunderstanding the Nature of Openness (Score:1)
As to Red Hat selling training for their brand of Linux (including specific quirks) it seems hard to see what moral compulsion there should be on them not to do this? Sometimes, its inevitable that a de-facto standard locks in, and other varieties become extinct. This can become a practical problem, but doesn't represent a moral failing on the part of the winners. (Even Microsoft are sometimes unfairly castigated just for being big - though they're often bad too)
NOT everything on RedHat's CD is GPLed... (Score:1)
MSlinux? (Not a flame) (Score:1)
The solution? Somebody picks up an old Red Hat version that _works_ and makes their own distribution. Or they take a new distribution, hack on it, and make it work.
A major point of Open Source is that it is designed to make it impossible for anyone to hold the customer by the nose ring.
Red Hat is currently the 800-lb gorilla in the Linux market. They may become the _entire_ Linux market. If they end up with 80-90% of the market, it will be because we consumers want it that way.
Believe you me, if Red Hat owns the market and starts pulling a Microsoft, www.blueboot.com (or some name equally unlikely) will come online, complete with the full Red Hat source, and fork the development off. The only way Red Hat could prevent that would be to stop shipping the source code--an absolute breach of copyright. That would immediately attract a school of lawyers and work them up into a feeding frenzy on the legal end, and probably a small army of crackers to "liberate" the code on the illegal end.
The two reasons that Microsoft can do what they do are because they have the right to charge for licenses, and they have exclusive source code rights. Red Hat can become a market leader, and possibly the one-and-only vendor, but the nature of the copyrights guarantees that they cannot become a monopolist. The barrier to entry in this market will always be low, and compatibility need never become an issue.
How Stupid... (Score:1)
real complaints.
Red Hat and KDE (Score:1)
LSB - some facts (Score:2)
The LSB is not about making all distributions identical. It's about giving application authors a minimal set of libraries, header files, configuration paths, locations for dynamic state &c., in known locations. i.e. Things that just make life easier for an application writer to port their software to Linux.
Redhat being unenthusiastic about LSB, and just attempting to have their FS layout the de-facto standard (as it is now) would be a Bad Thing. Fortunatly Eric Troan was very positive about it when I last heard him speak on the subject.
I hope Red Hat's technical base manage to hold out against pressures from marketing to go proprietary.
Redhat not supporting LSB... (Score:2)
Current Members:
Caldera Inc
The Debian Project
delix Computer GmbH
Pacific HiTech
>>Red Hat SoftwareSuSE. GmbH
WGS Inc
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc.
Metro Link, Inc.
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Linux Hardware Solutions
VA Research
As you can see RedHat, Debian, Caldera and SuSE are all members...
Maybe some truth there (Score:2)
There are a number of market leaders that are there simply because customers believe that they're the best of breed. Think of Tobasco (hot sauce), Caterpillar (construction equipment), Lego (building blocks) or Zamboni (ice resurfacers). These both lead their respective markets so well that the brand name is synonimous with the generic product.
In both of these cases, competition does exist, and one could argue that there are technical reasons that the competition's product is better. However, nobody argues that these products are bad at their job. If they ever started producing shoddy product or otherwise treating their customers poorly, the brand loyalty would only hold so far. Case in point: New Coke. Market leader screws up royally, and people scramble for the competition until they correct their ways.
Microsoft is a market leader, but it's more than that. It's gotten us locked in so that they can produce shoddy products and generally mistreat the customer, and we still buy their product. I only know of a handful of other products that can make money on Microsoft's business model: cocaine, LSD, heroin, and various other illicit drugs. They are a rogue corporation operating in ways that the normal assumed laws of capitalist economics no longer apply to them.
Red Hat is simply a market leader, and that's all it will ever be. It's another Zamboni. If they take their success and customers for granted, somebody will come up and snatch their crown. Because of the nature of the biz, this will happen _even if all other distributions are dead an buried by then_.
The barriers for entry into the Linux distribution market are low. It takes a moderate-sized corporate infrastructure, easily enough provided by a software tycoon who can see the profit. It takes talented staff in various areas, including engineering--if it's hard for you to get such people, it's hard for everybody else as well. And it takes a copy of the source code, which you have access to because it's Linux.
Will software only run for one distribution? Yup. If it's general purpose software (such as a database server), it should run everywhere. If one distribution has "magic code" required to run it, other distributions should get it and link it in! In other cases, distributions may optimize for different problem spaces (financial, home, gaming, backend number-crunching, internet service). If that happens, some apps will only go to one distribution. Again, if your distribution is losing share because it can't run package X, figure out why and make it run package X. All the source is available; Open Source has no secrets.
Some good point(s) about the article... (Score:2)
1.) Red Hat should consider joining the LSB even if it doesn't agree entirely with it, at this point. If you don't like something, and you think you have a better way, present it to your peers.
They do. They present their whole code base to their peers.
Brave New Slashdot World (Score:2)
It's a general attitude these people have, I think. Look what happens when an article gets posted about someone who doesn't look exactly right! There was something about Alan Cox a few weeks ago, and people who had never met him were talking about what trash he must be for his appearance (he has a long beard). I've never met him either, but he's done a lot of good work on the Linux kernel. That's all that really matters.
Some BIG Differences (Score:4)
Does Microsoft authorize a $1.99 Cheapbytes CD of their NT OS (Win98 doesn't compare to Linux - NT barely does)
Does Microsoft publish the source for NT and related apps?
Does Microsoft offer their NT OS free from FTP?
If your other dist isn't as progressive as RH in their libs, then download and install them - duh. The only real difference that RH has to other Linux's and Unix in general are some minor directory differences, but that's easy to get around by tweaking your PATH environment. Otherwise, they put out a good product, market it with skill, and fix bugs with haste - does Microsoft fit ANY of those descriptions? Even their marketing is stupid.
Linux users becoming like MS users (Score:5)
Windows users used to flame and think users of other operating systems were inferior and not worth their time. If somebody didn't use their type of hardware, they would be laughed at.
Now, a lot of linux users are wearing that shoe. What were once advocates and evangelists are now incensed zealtos.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war, but I invite people to take a look at what they do and say before they actually happen.
Regards,
Remy
Someone predicted this would happen. (Score:5)
This is is different than what I have been hearing
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10
I, for one, generally agree with the tone of the comments above, i.e., Red Hat has been good for Linux and a win for RH is a win for Linux in general.
But: This isn't what I have been hearing around here lately. I have been hearing about "the Microsoft of Linux" for months now. If I were a Gartner Groupie hanging out on Slashdot, I would have certainly written the same article.
In fact,
Sometimes we need to think before we post.
This person got it right on. I think that this article came straight out of Slashdot, with a few of Caldera's sour grapes thrown in. (BTW, is it just me, or did it seem like this story could have been cooked up -- or at least heavily influenced -- by Caldera?) Red Hat has got their problems, but, hey. This isn't the way to world domination.
Get your facts right and then post (Score:1)
Maybe you should understand the facts before you profess to know them. Writing software for Linux in no way obligates you to release the software under the GPL or give your source code away for free.
This is a choice made by RedHat to release their software under the GPL. There is nothing that forces RedHat (or any other vendor) to release programs they write under the GPL, modifications to the kernel or system libraries are a different story though.
These damn AC's piss me off sometime.
--Aaron Newsome [mailto]
Maybe some truth there (Score:5)
The practice of being in the free software business is just too different to put them on the same playing field as Microsoft, who focus on just te bottom line, FUD and hardball tactics.
I don't see Redhat as being the strongarm of the free software world, but I also don't think that Red Hat's philosophy is at all in line with Linus'.
Linus says that his personal drive for Linux is guided by technical excellence and nothing more. I don't see any technical excellence being driven by Redhat with their 'not quite their yet' tools, stranger than strange file locations and other general 'do it their way' crap.
And yes I am a bit bitter about having to upgrade all ny boxes to redhat only becuase none of the commercial software (Oracle) ran on my Slackware boxes that I'd had for years.
Thanks, Aaron Newsome [mailto].
Re: Maybe some truth there (Score:1)
Yes, RedHat has been lukewarm towards the LSB, but the LSB isn't even ready for a draft standard yet, there is no guarantee they will finish, much less be good. The other standard out there, the FHS, they have followed quite well (far better than the stranger than strange file locations you get with Slackware). I am sure that if the LSB is halfway decent when it is done, RedHat will follow it (I don't know about happily, but there will be lots of pressure for them to follow it).
Don't switch your boxes to RedHat for Oracle, upgrade your libraries, and force Oracle to work for you. Better yet, use PostgreSQL (it now has better row locking and better performance than Oracle on single processor machines).
Re: How Stupid... (Score:2)
* RedHat is NOT the easiest to install (maybe you want to look at EasyLinux)
I took a quick look at EasyLinux's webpage [skygate.co.uk], and it looks like they just remove one step from the RedHat installation, the disk partitioning step. The price of this is it installs Linux in a huge file on a fat partition, within which it simulates an ext2 partition. This can lead to horrible fragmentation and stability problems if the FAT partition is used often. Why do you think nobody uses Doublespace anymore?
* not everything on their CD is GPL'ed, as well as in any other distribution (except Debian maybe). Or do you have a GPL'ed Netscape, xv, XFree86, Perl, Tcl
True, I'll assume the original poster just misspoke. On the other hand, over 90% of the programming that RedHat does is GPL'ed (the remaining bit being the XFree86 stuff, either under X-Consortium license or NDA).
* at least when it comes to buggy distribution, RedHat comes very close to Microsoft
While RedHat does ship with bugs (as does every distribution, but many have fewer than RedHat) the bugs are almost never as bad as the disasters I've seen coming out of Microsoft. They are also fixed more quickly, and they make finding the updates much easier than Microsoft does.
I see almost no legitimate comparisons between RedHat and Microsoft. If you don't like RedHat, talk about what you don't like, don't make pointless comparisons to a company that is completely different in size, organization, business practices, licensing practices, development practices, product offerings, support offerings, power, attitude, budget, revenue, platform, and so forth. There are only two similarities I see: they both distribute software, and both have CEO's with glasses.
my post to talkback... (Score:1)
Indeed, with NT garnering decreased credibility and various Linux distributions growing at a rate of 212% last year, the Redmond vendor suddenly finds itself the unintended target of an exploding industry. And Microsoft is using every bit of its current market lead to push its alternative operating system into a dominant position.
Smart business move? Possibly. But some critics, such as the United States Department of Justice, contend that Microsoft's business practices, under CEO William Gates, are becoming heavy-handed and bad for the entire computing industry.
Most controversial, perhaps, is the company's new plan to fix bugs and respond to consumer problems, while 3rd party efforts to make revenue off of the open-source inspired idea are in the hopper. Further flustering the hornet's nest is Microsoft's unenthusiastic reception of any standards, including POSIX above v1, X-windows, kerberos, CODA, IPv6, and it's unwillingness to accept RedHat's challenge of becoming profitable and dominent while selling what is basically a commodity product.
It's ironic that the company which claims to be the market leader is not supporting well-known standards properly.
While the DOJ and numerous other companies are involved with lawsuits against the Redmond based giant, it's clear that Microsoft is no longer the chummy place it used to.... oh wait... never mind.
Rpm and Debian (Score:1)
MCSE test... $600... (Score:1)
As for certification, well, I got my CLA at digitalmetrics.com just for kicks (for $15, how wrong can you go?) and I'll wait and see what else appears that seems worthwhile.
Microsoft Linux! (Score:1)
How Stupid... (Score:1)
so I have intimate knowledge of all the restaurants I haven't eaten at during that time.
In my experience RH 5 and 5.1, while having some nice features, are a detriment to Linux reputation as a stable system. I was so frustrated by 5.0's crappyness that I had _3_ replacement CD's sent to
me from linuxcentral in the mistaken belief that they _must_ be defective.
Next step? Buy official boxed set from retail outlet. Still crap. Solution? Switch back to 4.1 which lived up to the hype, stability wise. 5.1 gets released, run out to retail outlet, buy boxed set. Install. Still crap.
Return to 4.1 while waiting for 5.2.
5.2 released, give it month to get in store, while tracking redhat erratta and updates.. still faithful, run to retailer.... Surprise! no RH5.2 _but_ they have Debian _and_ SuSE 5.3...Purchase SuSE, install, relax enjoy system that lives up to hype.
I also tried Caldera OpenLinux Lite 1.0 (crap) and
Slackware, which was good but the defaults seemed to be low on security and at the time I wasn't up to fixing it.
Hell, I even replaced all my hardware because of
sig11 faults when trying to compile a kernel under RH5*..
Of course, most of the probs I _had_ were related to using the system as a desktop machine.
SRPM vs DSC/diff.gz/tar.gz (Score:1)
The source for a Debian package comes in three different files, actually...
Now, this does use one source tarball and one diff per package (though there may be multiple allowed, I've only begun as a Debian developer :), but the source packages:
About the optimisation on different architectures... again, I'm unsure, but this is because of my lack of experience... especially since once I've uploaded a i386 + source package, it seems there are people who have automated builds for other architectures running, so I kinda haven't worried about it... but it might be possible, I'd have to check :)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I knew was provided by the Debian source package system, and hope that someone else could clarify the rest for me...
Welll... (Score:1)
Red Hat and KDE (Score:1)
Which is somewhat beside the point, but anyhow, if KDE advocates did _not_ want one uberdesktop, one uberdistribution, then it might be FUD to call RedHat another MS (as in, fear of it, uncertainty about using it, doubt of if it's the right thing). However if KDE people are already predominantly accustomed to Windows and want 'weak' strains of linux to die out leaving all the support and development on KDE and Red Hat, would 'Red Hat is the next MS' really be an attack on RH? Wouldn't it instead be sort of an argument that one shouldn't support any other distribution because they are all going to be Darwinned out of existence?
Absolutely WRONG (Score:1)
Ransom Love is whining that Informix targeted Red Hat for their port. Well guess what Caldera? If you really want to be compatible you could easily take Red Hat's ENTIRE distribution, slap your CLOSED SOURCE Novell crap on top of it and brand it Caldera. Mandrake Linux and others have done exactly this.
If you are incompatible, FIX it. That's what open source is about. Red Hat doesn't have any secret API's that are designed to break competing software.
I've used Red Hat quite a bit and I haven't paid them a single penny, unlike certain Microsoft products I no longer use and pay out the nose for! Furthermore, I heavily use Red Hat's ftp, web services, mailing lists, and take advantage of the fact that they are supporting development in GNOME, KDE, Enlightenment and the kernel itself (Alan Cox). I'm glad to see Red Hat is successful and as long as they continue to support Free software I will support them.
BTW, last I heard Linus used Red Hat. I'd sure like to see how HE customizes that bad boy
LSB ideas and ZDNet article. (Score:1)
As for the article, I don't think RedHat has crossed the evil line yet. Anyway, it is in RedHat's best interests FINANCIALLY to remain in good standing with the community.
Not even close (Score:1)
>When you say microsoft is selling software >because they want to make money, I say, "Don't >waste your time typing that into a keyboard."
This is true... I should have just assumed that as a 'given.' I stand corrected.
>Now when you say RedHat is selling Linux becuase >it works, I say, "Are you out of you mind?"
I didn't say that that's why they're selling it. I said that's why they're pushing it, that's why they have half the sales in the open source community, and they shouldn't be picked on for it.
>RedHat isn't some non-profit organization >selling Linux CDs so they can buy rice to send >over to somalia.
Quite true. I know that they're doing this to pay the bills just like everyone else. My intent was to point out the marked difference between they way they and Microsoft handle the issue.
MS made 95 (again a given, but I'll make a thought progression out of it, don't worry!) and sold it to the masses for $90 a box. I'll admit, before I gained some knowledge, I thought '95 was the best thing that ever hit my hard drive. (=>@ *(*%(*^%(%(*%) Then MS makes IE4... freely downloadable from their conxion FTP mirror. Then... they make '98. And they sell the Windows 98 upgrade for another $90. Holy rip off Batman! 95 with IE4 and 98 are IDENTICAL!! There are only a VERY few subtle differences.
Now... Redhat makes a linux distribution. When a friend of mine bought the 5.1 box set it was $50. Then 5.2 was released. You can download the entire thing for free, or you can pay another $30 for the 5.2 box set.
Redhat is definately NOT in this for the principle of the thing, they want to make their money. But, they're also not just selling us something we already have. And they're not inflating the value of what they sell.
Again... my two cents.
Redhat?! (Score:1)
I agree with that redhat is a kind of mini-m$.
They have slow sucking "user-friendly" distributions with bugging libraries
The only difference is that caldera doesn't make money like m$ does
Slackware rox!
Typical Calderan Stormtrooper Tactics (Score:1)
This is just what I'd expect from Caldera. The trail of bodies behind that company just gets longer and longer, doesn't it?
Not that Red Hat is any better. The rumors of prohibited biological experiments in their classified mountain bunker are too persistent -- and too detailed -- to ignore. And does anybody still bother trying to keep track of all the international war crimes tribunals that have been convened solely for the purpose of investigating the atrocities commited by the infamous Red Hat Brigade? I thought not.
Imminent Demise of Slashdot Predicted (Score:1)
The users are going to destroy slashdot.
Yeah, if it doesn't destroy them first.
Conviction without action is the ruin of the soul
Ham without eggs is the ruin of breakfast.
Red Hat another AOL? (Score:1)
Don, you make an excellent point. I think that all Redhat needs to complete the transition to an AOL type entity is to make the default runlevel 5 in the
At that point you have the equiv of M$ windoze for Linux. If that happens the dumbing down of the typical user will accellerate beyond all control.
It's because AOL has attracted the lowest common denominator to the internet that we've had to deal with crap like the CDA. When the internet was too difficult for the average child to access, nobody used protecting children from smut on the internet as a campaign issue.
I think of myself as a rather competent computer user and for all I know and all I can do I'm a flea compared to men like Linus, and the GURUs at bell labs who envisioned the concepts of UNIX and Linux.
In a decade, even though I'll never be in their league, I will be that far ahead of the people who are considered very capable or competent.
Just as now I'm humbled by people who still do assembler programming.
LK
Linux: the price of success (Score:1)
Man, Red Hat does seem to be doing a really good job in packaging and marketing. (I'm unqualified to judge their code, so I won't.) For Linux to be really successful, someone's got to do that. Not everybody in the world has the vision to just automatically see how Open Source works, and why their fears and doubts are unjustified. Red Hat's doing that, and doing it well.
So the question I pose to you is: how successful do you want Linux to be? If you want it to remain where it is, then fine. But if you want it to go head to head with Microsoft on every level, you've got to accept that there are companies out there that will take the lead and become rich.
The best thing, I think, that Linux users can do is to support a standards base and hold all companies accountable to it. And if Red Hat or someone else decides to do something squirrelly with the code, use the power that brought Linux to prominence in the first place to set things straight again.
I tell ya...this open source thing is amazing. I hope it stays that way.
Assistant Producer? (Score:1)
Hey, I'm 19, no college education, yet still gainfully employed. I must be doing something right.
Red Hat another AOL? (Score:1)
I too think of myself as a Linux newbie in many ways. Even though I maintain two linux servers (one business, one personal), I only recently compiled and installed a custom kernel with success. Were it not for RedHat I'd still be where I was 6 months ago.
However just because you start out doing it the easy way, doesn't mean that you should be content continue on that path.
But as a whole it is NOT a good thing to remove people so much from technology.
When my dad was my age, there was not a part in his car that he couldn't fix himself with a good sized toolbox. If my car weren't so hopelessly old I'd never be able to lift the hood. As automotive technlogy marched on people got lazy, we were more than happy to go to firestone, or Mr. Goodwrench to get our cars fixed instead of learning to do it ourselves.
We are marching down the same path with computers. Hell maybe I'll open a repair center and call it Mr. Goodchips and make a load of cash.
LK
Not even close (Score:2)
First of all... Red Hat and MS are two completely different animals. MS is pushing software on people, basicly to make money ($90 a pop for Windows 98... WHAT THE ????) and just because they can. They (or should I say 'he') are (is) using the fact that so many people are locked into using MS products to keep digging the trench deeper.
On the flip side of the coin, Red Hat is pushing their software because it WORKS! And works well. It's easy to install, easy to configure, easy to learn, and easy to use. Plus it doesn't crash. I think I've gotten my box to freeze all of once because that was way back (a month ago) when I had no clue what I was doing. Anyway... couple the fact that Red Hat makes good reliable software, with the price difference! I've seen the 5.2 box set for $30! Or if you're cheap, just download it!
At the very least I'd say that comparing the two companies in the first place (in that manner) is the quickest way to get "Gold Member" status on your Moron Club Card.
Just my two cents, feel free to dispense change.
As a Debian user, I think RH are all right. (Score:2)
And they do support the LSB. And they fund free software development. And they support standards. I think their behavour is pretty much exemplary.
I still prefer Debian though...
--
Look at the LSB and decide for yourself: (Score:1)
LSB Home Page [linuxbase.org]
My feeling is that it is very important. I run FreeBSD, Debian, and RedHat; I'd very much like for RedHat and Debian to be more compatible, as I imagine many people would like Slackware to be, etc. There's no reason for gratuitous incompatibility -- RedHat is a bunch of nice people, but sometimes their decisions for where to put things and what to include make little sense.
A common starting point would be very good for Linux, and would really stuff it to the "fragmentation FUDrakers" once and for all.
none are (Score:1)
Its all the same (Score:1)
Red Hat doesn't a Linux monopoly. Hell, they don't even have a monopoly on selling Red Hat -- head to cheapbytes or linuxmall and you can buy a copy for $2, none of which goes to Red Hat. They are trying, primarily, to be a service and support vendor, not to dominate the industry.
Redhat not supporting LSB??? (Score:1)
TedC
Some good point(s) about the article... (Score:1)
They wrote the PPP and IPX stuff for Linux.
I find myself defending Caldera on an increasingly regular basis. This isn't because I like their distro so much as I dislike all the FUD _within_ the Linux community. FUD is FUD, whether it comes from MS or an AC.
BTW, I'm not singling you aout in particular, but I had to post this somewhere. :-)
TedC
is it going to be in 6.0 (Score:1)
How Stupid... (Score:2)
I assume you're referring to libc5. They are out of date, but they aren't "bug ridden". They used (past tense, so this post isn't out of date by the end of the month...) them because they're stable. A bug (unintended program behavior) is not the same as a missing feature (thread support).
TedC
Feh...FUD (Score:1)
You are missing the point! (Score:2)
Linux is free.
That means that anyone who doesn't want to go with RedHat doesn't have to. Given the freeness of Linux, I see no way for RedHat to somehow deprive you of your choice among the distributions. If you don't like any of them, you can even roll your own. (I'd love to do that someday, but I don't have the time.)
How could RedHat make .rpms incompatible? rpm is GPLed. We'd all be able to see what the format changes were and they'd gain nothing but ill will.
Remember, RedHat is a company. Their primary goal is to earn enough money to allow their employees to make a living working for them. If they ever did anything along the lines of the paranoid ravings being spouted here, they would lose all community trust. With that trust would go their profits. I doubt they plan anything so insidious.
--Phil (Over there! It's a conspiracy! Made you look...)
MSlinux? (Score:1)
As was found in an earlier debate, RPMS are great as long as you can trust them not to screw up your system. Some incomplete RPMS when removed can (yes do) make life a living hell for any future version of that program.
Avoiding this requires waiting for the distributions RPMS, or others you trust or even making your own.
But then making your own RPM is more hassle than "make install". But if you ever install something that isn't an RPM then you can never install (AFAIK) without forcing it, a program that is dependant on it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
Good information (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~
No this is Community concern (Score:1)
Redhat is the Linux Microsoft, which goes to show just how good it is. Even our Microsoft (RedHat) contribitues to the community, even our Microsoft (RedHat) sets its programs free as open-source.
But Linux is a operating system born of community effort. And if someone wants to port, there should be an easy way they can port to the community (including RedHat) rather than just porting it to the Microsoft of Linux (Redhat).
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~
Lord of the Ring (Score:1)
Its true I'm borrowing the analogy from an earlier (like last year) article mentioned by Slashdot, but it is amazing to me how much it applies. if someone could reproduce the URL I'd appreciate it greatly.
The Ring here is the power over little things, like where files should be placed, and which libc to use. These are little things but they're neccesity for higher level apps (the ones we actually use to be productive.)
The example of what control this can bring is Microsoft themselves. Not only by there dominance of the actualy operating system but by there dominance of the User Interface and the libraries that generate them and the API hooks into those libraries.
That is what we're afraid of isn't it? It doesn't matter who controls the ring, its the ring itself that we fear. We fear its power over us, and I cringe anytime someone gets close to that ring, no matter the morals of that person.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~
MSlinux? (Score:1)
When I mention a RPM screwing up your system, I mean an RPM messing up the packaging system. Like a partially installed RPM that fond a little bug that makes it abort, but enough was installed to add it to the RPM registry (nope I didn't call it a database.) I haven't found a good way yet to clean up a RPM registry after something like this happens and it happens frequently since I get impatient (I know my personal problem) for Redhat releases to update software.
As far as maintaining multiple systems, I think in other discussions its a settled issue that the Debian packaging system and tools are even better than RPM. And they are open source, and they are GPL (and the long list of what everyone calls it these days.)
And how do I, after installing with "make install" say the new GTK libraries, then without forcing it installation install Gimp?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^
MSlinux? (Score:1)
Stampede seems to understand these concerns really well. They're SLIP is the packaging system that doesn't have to be. ENCAPS is also really good but doesn't check dependancies.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~
Lord of the Ring (Score:1)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
You don't understand Linux (Score:3)
I don't coun't it as FUD, where is the uncertanty and doubt? Infact a consliracy theory like this that says Redmond is shoveling this rhetoric IS FUD ON YOUR PART . Indeed, it is showing an early lead for RedHat to prescribe its (lame) administration nuances on anyone who wants to run propriatary software. It shows certainty of RedHat's system as the port for your MS software moving to linux.
If proprietary software runs on RedHat then it becomes the Linux Standard Base, rather than the community well though out effort that the LSB is.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
I dub thee Rob Malda, Sir Troll of Slashdot! (Score:1)
<*plonk!*>
All Hail Sir Troll of Slashdot!
All the distributions will die anyway (Score:1)
Daniel
PS - I'm not putting a company out of business either.
Rpm and Debian (Score:1)
Daniel
Rpm and Debian (Score:1)
Which features? Compatability with RedHat doesn't count..
(not that I disbelieve you but I'm tired of people making broad claims (another good one "Gnome is founded on a poor architecture") with no examples or explanation.
Daniel
You are missing the point! (Score:2)
If I am not able to choose which one I want (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, Turbo Linux...) then Linux will go a big step backward.
Ok Red Hat has done (is doing) great things for Linux but I want CHOICE!
Besides, Red Had having the biggest market share can (by changing it's "format") make all the rpm incompatible with other distros.
This remembers me what a company from Redmond is doing to keep the lead in the desktop market...
I am not against RH (I have it on my PC), just worried...
Incompatability (Score:1)
IMHO, the LSB is only weak because of lack of manpower. And I don't know if Red Hat supplying that would be a good thing. The LSB just needs people with time to get things going. They recently some stress over time to even keep the HTML up to date, and that's still an ongoing battle.
If you wanna see compatability, then lend a hand in the LSB, it's that simple. If you wanna see Red Hat Dominate, do nothing and just keep buying CD's from them. I don't have a problem with Red Hat, I use it on several boxes, but I would like to see the LSB get some more momentum, and that will just have to come from manhours.
If Red Hat is so secretly anti-LSB as the FUD artical says, why is Alan Cox (who works for Red Hat) one of the most active members on every LSB list?!?
Impossable (Score:2)
- GPL'ed all software developed in house.
- Allow free download of product they sell (including manual).
- Openly communicate with competitors.
If you think those fit Microsoft, well, then maybe the two are the same.I just don't see it (and haven't since the first time I heard this FUD over a year ago).
R.Young's view? (Score:1)
Bottom line is that is typical ZDNet FUD. Not worth my effort to say much more.
That said, I would like to know why Robert Young had his editoria on the LSB pulled from the archive on freshmeat.net. Does anyone know the scoop (NPI!) on that? Does anyone have a copy of his editorial?
I'm not suggesting anything here. But I would like all the facts.
I personally use RedHat on around ten machines, not counting personal stuff, so it's safe to say that I'm not biased against them. Not that I don't have my gripes about the way their setup program works (have fun not installing X!) or the way the deviate from a given package's standard locations for files. But all in all they don't entirely suck.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
what a crock (Score:1)
redhat isn't a microsoft. they produce GPL software.
use whatever distribution you like.
Debian is our insurance policy (Score:1)
Debian is important for all of us, even if we don't use it.
Easiest to install? -- well...... (Score:1)
Value-added vs. Proprietary (Score:1)
RedHat comparisions to Microsoft (Score:2)
If RedHat started developing its own closed source office suite and bundling it with its distribution then it would be infringing on Microsofts practices. I don't see that happening though. The various distributions happen not to be exactly plug and play compatible for software applications. Common sense says that most of it will work best with whoever has the largest market share.
The RedHat training is another point that I don't agree with. RedHat has a distribution. It only makes sense both from a business stand point and a feasibility stand point. RedHat employs a lot more people that know RedHat than know Caldera etc. Caldera has the option of providing training as well, and despite their vocal objection to RedHats training I'd be pretty suprised if they didn't also do distribution specific training.
It would be good if all the distributions had all the same libraries and all the various configuration files in the same place, but then there would only be one distribution with maybe some smaller companies selling CD's of the source and binary trees.
RE: Linux users becoming like MS users (Score:1)
Sean
This will probally get me flamed... (Score:1)
Besides, there are several distributions of linux that are little more than RedHat 5.2 with either the latest KDE or Gnome bundled with it. RedHat doesn't mind. Let's see someone put out a version of win98 with netscape as the default browser and watch the hordes of lawyers swarm out of Washington.
Me two shillings worth
Phoenix
Rpm and Debian (Score:1)
But one thing disturbs me, but I am not sure I got this right since I wasn't there at the time but:
1. Debian made their package system. (right?)
2. RedHat thought: Great idea, let's make one too.
Under many circumstances I can understand that. The problem is that the Debian system clearly is better so why didn't they use that? Or even renamed it to RPM but kept them compatible??? Or was Debians packaging system really crappy at the start?
I support Red Hat (Score:2)
I can't even think of examples where Red Hat has bullied other distros around (yes: I remember the LSB, but I understand that that is somewhat rectified, and I still wouldn't call it bullying).
--Lenny
Shall I go and slay these Philistines? (Score:1)
Ransom Love is being hypocritical, IMO. (Score:1)
What exactly are "closed business practices", or "open business practices" for that matter?
Sometimes it's necessary to run your business in a "closed" manner. Other things can be run right out in the open. How many "open" business practices does Ransom Love practice?
Hell, someone accused Linux/PPC of being like MS. (Score:1)
-- jase, who hopes never to be middle-aged, paunchy, and balding. At least not in the order.
Linux users becoming like MS users (Score:1)
Every OS sucks. Its just find the one that sucks the least for you.
Re: Excatly what is tried to say last week ... (Score:1)
Quick skimming of the comments... (Score:1)
Red Hat's work is open for all to see. I fail to see Microsoft connections, which brings me to another point: Microsoft bashing.
There are some people who support Linux only because they begrudge the success of MS. That's not helpful to the field, and in the end it's not helpful to Linux. Red Hat is feeling the heat from those people.
It's under the GPL (Score:1)
What nonsense. (Score:1)
djb@redhat.com, Donnie Barnes. (sorry if I spelled that incorrectly).
The passage I refer to comes from his visit to the UCLA LUG, roughly this:
Q (somebody from OCLUG): Why doesn't RedHat make a windows program which detects and sets up the hardware, then automatically installs Linux.
A (djb): Because we don't want to hire a Windows developer, or pay MSDN subscription fee...
Note:
a) This isn't the exact quote, but it's along these lines.
b) I don't want to reflect negatively on djb, he is a great guy
c) This is a damn good idea. ZipSlack is along these lines. It's how I got started with Linux many years ago.
Vince
MSlinux? (Score:3)
redhat vs. other distributions (Score:1)
Which default location do you mean? Many programs default to
Exclusivity? (Score:1)
Why Red Hat is not the next M$ (Score:1)
Hard to imagine M$ doing this. Red Hat has already shown an acceptance of Linux diversity and a remarkable tolerance for criticism, deserved or otherwise.
Support the distribution of your choice, but also support Red Hat.
-----------------------------------------------
Nothing to see here, just move on (Score:1)
This is ZDNet's obligatory linux article for today. It's just them not being able to come up with anything more exciting - so they made something up.
I just wonder how many interesting story submissions got passed up for this one (which was worthless).
You have been flamed (Score:1)
The truth is that the imperious, greedy criminal distributions such as the fudding Red Hat must be eradicated, as well as the pitiful $lackware that came before them and the evil $u$e.
The Calderaan$ are the most impure of all and shall be purged by fire.
They are all evil. We must all inform on the Red Hat filth among us. The enemy is everywhere!
Absolutely NOT. (Score:1)
proprietary software sometimes needs inittab (Score:1)
Matlab's own install script coped fine with this on my debian box (after I fixed the libs I broke with careless sym-linking in
I agree about easy upgrades with debian. It's very impressive.
Inevitable (Score:5)
This sort of situation is really inevitable. When companies get involved, they are going to pursue their bottom line, and they really dont give a shit about anything else. They dont give a shit about freedom, open source, or the community unless it is really advantageous for them. There is no advantage for RH in LSB. Why should they advocate something that might take people away from their platform?
"Look at gnome.. rpm," you say. There's a difference. Gnome is different because I believe redhat sees a financial advantage right now about keeping it's contribution open source. Furthermore, they cant close-source it because it's based on GTK, which is OSS. They know that if they could close-it, and they did, everyone would stop using RH, pretty much, so they dont.
RPM is a different problem altogether. RPM was created by RH when linux was still quite a small deal. Since then, RH has grown by leaps and bounds, and so has Linux.
The thing to know about companies is, they are NOT human. After a certain critical mass, they retain NO human qualities. RPM was released when RH was still run by humans, and humans who cared somewhat for the linux community. Furthermore, Linux itself was a very small platform back then, and all developments had to be shared if it had any chance of hitting the big time. Now it has.
There's just one more thing I'd like to point out. There are tons of people out there who have absolutely no problem with Linux getting in bed with the big guys - IBM, SUN, SGI, Dell, Compaq, etc. I just ask, has anyone noticed how far Linux has come WITHOUT any business help? Were the businesses here when kernel 1.2.13 became 2.0.0? Why do people attatch such a big significance to "market share"? Is "market share" going to make Linux inherently better? Is the worth of an operating system decided by how many people use it, or it's technical features? What is the worth of an OS if it is used by everybody, but technically lacking? What price is this community willing to pay to gain widespread acceptance in the world?
Big business did not help Linux 1 iota in it's development - and they wont help either unless they see a very direct way for them to profit from it. And greedy profit-seeking, in this case, is very very bad.
The feeling now is something akin to "look mom, I build my own race-car and it won the indy-500, and now all these nice rich people want me to wear their shoes and clothing, and they say they'll give me lots of money for it too.. gee whiz". Big business has a way of leaving everything it touches in a state of decrepid waste. Watch out.
-Laxative
BSD is better because their users are more mature? (Score:2)
I've never seen BSD and I imagine that it kicks ass but Linux has so many killer aps for it already and more are flowing in daily. Plus, it's fast, efficient (not a memory hog, are you listening Bill?), and it doesn't crash. I bet you could say the same for BSD and more power to you.
You can't fault an OS for its users.
Isn't this Caldera whining? (Score:2)
And what is that about the LSB being "an industrywide push to decide what basic components should go into every Linux distribution"? Well, actually, I just checked out the page, and RedHat is one of the members. There doesn't seem to be much that's actually in LSB at the moment, aside from a spec for glibc 2.0. Exactly how imcompliant is RedHat to these "standards"? How many of these "standards" exist for RedHat's dist to be incompliant?
MSlinux? (Score:2)
Natas
There's more to it than a free license (Score:2)
Someone else already pointed out that it isn't all GPL'ed, but even if it were, RedHat could still lock people into their distribution; the key is in how they put it all together. A co-worker of mine compiled pine on a RedHat 5.2 machine, and it won't run on Debian 2.1. When we recompiled pine on the Debian machine, it ran on both platforms. Something about RedHat's development environment prevented the RedHat compiled binary from running on Debian. Whether or not this is intentional on RedHat's part is irrelevant, but this demonstrates that if a company develops a product on RedHat, users may have trouble running that product on other platforms. Unfortunately, many companies feel that they must develop on RedHat if most of their customers will be using RedHat.
The company I work for is using Debian 2.1 as the primary development environment for the libc6 version of our product, even though having our product work on RedHat is absolutely imperative. There are a number of reasons we chose Debian 2.1 over RedHat, but the one I would like to emphasize here is that I'm confident in Debian's development environment being as standard as possible. (Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)
One sided and full of flaws. Here are a couple. (Score:2)
So what's the story?
Do we want ONE standard from LSB, or do we want to let the different "quirks" thrive, the very diversity and ability to try out new ideas without "standards approval" (why does that sound so much like microsoft, and its windows logo/co-marketing deals)?
Do we really beleive that Red Hat has some proprietary libraries that allow Informix to run on their system but not one others, when ANY system, including Caldera's can take any library, even the Red Hat package manager from Red Hat and use it in their own distribution?
Do we see a company that provides programmers, bandwidth, and a damn nice distribution for free? Or do we see a microsoft which is shutting down the competition (there seem to be more distributions than ever).
What we see is a piece of rock-bottom ZDnet reporting, and I read their stuff every day, by a reporter who couldn't be bothered to get the other side of the story, and got the story wrong. It's so pathetic it is unbeleivable, and worrisome because it might be believed.
MS-Linux: not yet. Office for Linux: most probably (Score:2)
gold mine in Windows in all its forms to give
credibility to a competitor, plus they don't
exactly have a good brand image for this one.
However, Office for Linux is another matter - they
can play exactly the same game that they do with
Office for Macs.
Let's face it - the Halloween memos show that
MS is aware that the effect of Linux is to
commoditise the operating system. If there's
no way they can kill it [1], they'll want to
be in on it and the easiest way they can
do that is through Office.
[1] I'd guess an attempt at FUD, patents and
especially FUD about patents. I don't think
it'll work, but I bet they try it.
How Stupid... (Score:3)
Easiest to install? (Score:2)
"Normality - What one individual (usually deranged) perceives that the world should be, which does not directly coorelate to the views of any other people" -- me