I have been setting up redhat linux 9 for the last day or so, anyway I was on a freinds forum and someone stated to me this...

I am wondering how true this is.

I set up redhat cause i seem to like it better than mandrake and fedora, altho if this is true i might move over to something else, but i havent made up my mind...

anyway any help on the 1st question would be great.. and any links you can throw up there so i can read it...

thanx
DeathGoth

redhat split into two halves, redhat itself became an enterprise level distribution and it then opened up it's internal developement to form a home-user group distro called fedora. as far as you should be concerned, fedora IS redhat.

I think the interface for it looks lame. plus its, well when i tried fedora was a b*tch to get updates.. i mean I let my computer sit for days to get updates.. RH is really good i like it... but i guess you are right...

Fedora is a community-based operating system built on the old Red Hat desktop version. Red Hat have dropped all lines below their Enterprise version and no longer produce software aimed at the desktop market.

Fedora is often considered less stable than Red Hat, possibly because of the mix of community contributions and a fixed release schedule, but it's still a good OS.

Red Hat as a company has not announced the cessation of trade, so one can hardly say they are dead (as a company). They're just focusing on the market for bigger computers.

I guess if they kill the market for people i will go buy the OS... i guess..

RH9 and all previous versions are dead in the sense that RH is no longer supporting them.
RH is now focused on RHEL, their enterprise o/s. with RHEL you will have to pay for support.

FC1 and FC2, which are free, have community based support.

if you are interested in RHEL check out whitebox linux,
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

whitebox is RHEL with all of the Red Hat trademarks and logos removed, and best of all its free...

Is there any images or whatever for that OS Saber??

there are 3 iso images to download,
just click on the link i previously posted,
then click on the download link on the left side of the page,
you should be able to get what you need from there.

I ment screens of the OS itself.. sorry..

no one has killed anything. fedora is just as patronising as redhat 9 was.... and looks just as naff. ;-)

I`m quite happy with redhat it does everything i want + need it to, I find it easy to get around and all the hardware I use works fine with it, I still get notifications for updates for it in mozilla, I suppose it all depends whether u r happy with the distro u use and what u use it for.

i haven't seen any screen shots but whitebox looks very similar to RH9 or FC,
if you are using RH9 you should feel right at home with whitebox.

"I'm not dead, yet!"

You can look at any screenshot of gnome or kde to get an idea what it looks like.. cause your not really looking at fedora or redhat or any other distro for that matter with screenshots. Distributions are packaged bundles of open source projects, GPL software and so on to combine and create an OS that uses the Linux kernel..

So I can show you a screenshot of Slackware using Gnome as the desktop and then show you a screenshot of Fedora running the same version and there won't be a difference, unless I opened up an app that might come with one distro and the other doesn't come with it, etc.

Distributions usually make their own utility tools to configure your system and installers, that's usually the main difference.

Regards.

That isn't entirely true. Otherwise, there would not have been bile and condemnation thrown at RH over BlueCurve. RH took many steps to make the BlueCurve theme look as identical as possible across KDE and GNOME. Further, they have a set of system/server configuration tools you won't find in other distributions (they are, of course OSS; you can install them ). Screenshots of that would be a reasonable request. I'd say that nearly all requests for screenshots of a distribution are an attempt to see how it looks *in stock configuration*, which does seem to matter to many people.

Also, they way they lay out the menus, stock settings in Nautilus, etc., as well as "integration patches" to make KDE and GNOME similar do have an effect on how it looks. And finally, there is the choice of how some apps are compiled. For example, Ximian's OOo doesn't look like other distributions'. Choice of icon set theems, splash screens, etc.. Even ont he command line. For example, it is easy to see a differences in the command line's appearance between RH and Gentoo for example.

So yes, while the original source is *mostly* the same, there are in fact differences in RH/FC as opposed to , say Slackware or Mandrake, or Gentoo.