Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This would be really great... (Score 1) 90

I worked in Red Hat Support when both RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 were released. Yes, each one had growing pains that made it unsuitable for many users. Most of those problems involved:

1) 3rd-party kernel modules
2) combinations of motherboards/BIOSes/peripherals/firmwares that each individually worked fine, but interacted in a way that caused undefined behavior that just happened to work correctly on the previous release
3) hardware that wasn't available for QA prior to release
4) entirely new features that had never been widely used in enterprise environments.
5) inadequate configuration tools or documentation

The first three don't apply to a VM hosting provider, because they use racks upon racks of identical hardware that's been QA'd to death, and the guest OS can run either a fully-virtualized kernel that's been thoroughly tested against the VM, or a paravirtualized kernel that you've already QA'd yourself on your hardware and run across all distributions you offer. Most of the new features that the last two apply to are for scale-up use cases, not scale-down use cases, so they mostly don't apply to the typical VM hosting customer either.

My developers want a modern LAMP stack, like the one in Ubuntu 10.04, and I want to give them that without subscribing to 3rd-party repos maintained by people who don't know how to write an RPM spec file. I'd also like it running on top of ext4, with a bunch of other management goodies in the newer distro. A RHEL 6 VM would be perfectly fine for that.

Comment This would be really great... (Score 1) 90

...if there were a single VM hosting provider on earth offering RHEL 6 images. I know they pissed some people off with the new pricing structure, but Red Hat has always cut special deals with hosting providers, so I'm forced to wonder what they hell they've done to piss them off so much that nobody is offering it more than 6 months after release.

There are an awful lot of people who need the kinds of data center reliability that need million-dollar investments, but don't have the economies of scale to do it themselves. It's baffling that Red Hat is leaving that revenue opportunity on the shelf, with Ubuntu 10.04 LTS offering a much newer stable distribution, and available with a lot of different hosting providers.

Comment Rule 34 (Score 1) 221

If it exists, both the CIA and the NSA have each figured out independent ways to spy on it.

They usually try to limit the scope of anything that can be detected, to reduce the risk of people getting spooked and switching to new things that they have to do more work to figure out how to spy on. For passive attacks, they're only limited by what they can blackmail, err... convince the Justice Department not to prosecute them for.

Comment Re:Software Freedom Law Center (Score 1) 418

If they're just trying to get people to sign up for their newsletter, they can still do that while complying with the GPL. That won't prevent other people from redistributing it, but if they have a trademark, they can still be the only source of "WinMTR", much like Red Hat is the only source of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, even though there are numerous community rebuilds that coexist with RHEL.

Comment Re:Aren't Fedora kernels free already? (Score 1) 283

Fedora's historical view, much like Linus's, has been that binary blobs are okay as long as they're running on special-purpose hardware, rather than the general-purpose CPU. Drivers, even though they *control* special-purpose hardware, run on the CPU, with complete access to the resources of the entire system, so the drivers themselves need to be open source to be part of Fedora proper, even if some of their functionality is implemented in a binary firmware blob.

This view is not shared universally in the Fedora community, and many (including a lot of Red Hat employees) are growing increasingly fed up with it. I would not be shocked to see Fedora do something like this in the not so distant future. Take a look at this, for example:

Comment Not a security analysis tool (Score 4, Informative) 159

Disclaimer: I used to work for Red Hat and personally know some of the board.

SQLNinja is not a security analysis tool. It is no more useful for telling you if your database app is insecure than a blowtorch is for telling you if you have a gas leak. SQL injection vulnerabilities are *trivial* to detect with simple input fuzzing.

SQLNinja is certainly a legitimately useful *demonstration* tool for developers and administrators to show their bosses just how severe their problems are, such that they might be prioritized, but it's designed for software that doesn't even run on Fedora, so it provides negligible benefit to the Fedora community. Anyone who knows enough to search for "SQL injection tool" can find it and install it, so there's really not much of a barrier here, but leaving it out of the distribution reduces the risk of Fedora being used as a gateway to the fat wallet of Red Hat in any litigation, a problem which most community distributions do not suffer from.

Fedora takes a lot of moral stands, but they're ultimately about things that will somehow benefit the Fedora community in the long term, and there's really no foreseeable payoff here, or certainly none that overrides the fantastic headache it could incur. I certainly can't fault them for picking their battles.

Comment Use a long-term distro (Score 2, Informative) 375

A friend of mine tried this with her rather savvy users, but the churn in Fedora created too much work to keep up with. It worked fine, but they ended up switching to Ubuntu LTS for the longer support lifetime, since CentOS 5 was getting a little old. If you prefer the Fedora ecosystem, RHEL 6 was just released, and CentOS 6 will be out soon.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can't get very far in this world without your dossier being there first." -- Arthur Miller