Red HatThis forum is for the discussion of Red Hat Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Im sorry but i did not read the entire thread.. but my opinions on redhat are good.. I'd like to share my thoughts.
They are merging with fedora.. so a free distro is still available.. just not called redhat anymore.. not a bad deal imo
as for redhat switching to enterprise only.. I think that is really cool.. if redhat can give large corporations a reason to get rid of MS products in their infrastructure.. the more reason their employees will have to switch their home machines to linux, i think that is a win-win situation...
The more people to start using linux imo, the better. I think RedHat is making a step foward with an "enterprise" only approach.
Yes, trey, and after spending a few hours installing FreeBSD and Slackware, I think they are all the same in respect to performance, although updating might be a little more work for one vs. another.
Maybe someone can fill us in on the real differences between the different distros, besides GUIs and supported hardware. From what I can see, they have all been the same in terms of interfaces...hell, GNOME is GNOME no matter how you slice it, and when one gets to the command line, it is all the same in terms of working and know-how.
So, hats off to RH as well. I will give Fedora a shot as some point. The main thing for me will be the ease up updating. The ease of actual use, in respect to setup and configuration 'thing', is not really as important as ease of updating for me. Once a server is setup, I don't want to jack with it, except to update packages for the most part. Spending a little extra time setting it up doesn't really bother me.
This has been a great learning experience for me, as I had only worked with RH, for the most part anyway. Now I see more clearly and widely in this context, and it makes me realize there is not any kind of dependence on one distro alone. There are MANY viable alternatives in the Linux world. Good to know, imo. ;o)
-joseph
Last edited by joseph_1970; 11-12-2003 at 09:56 AM.
I think that besides the obvious package content, the scripts are what make the distro. They all have access to the same packages, as they are freely available to anyone. The scripts and configurations however are unique to each and every distro.
Some have command line scripts, some have gui's or both. Some packages are compiled and configured differently, kernel configurations vary between the distros.
You could easily do a minimum install of any distro and go out and get your software from GNU/Linux and build it yourself.
By using a distros software you have the support of the distro, as they know what's in it and what needs updating. If you go out on your own you just need to be aware of updates and bugs. It's my opinion that just because something comes out new it's not necessarily a great idea to upgrade to it. You need to address problems your setup may have, but updating software for no reason is going to get you more problems.
Last edited by DavidPhillips; 11-09-2003 at 01:19 AM.
Thank you for your response, David. I think finally I am understanding the greater context now. After installing the different distros over the past few days, I have learned a great deal. And, surely there will always be a great deal more to learn. Forums like this and sharing with folks like you has been part of of that learning. It is greatly appreciated.
Red hat 9 Will continue to be supported by THE FEDORA PROJECT & FRESH RPMS.
I have a question for all of us .
If LINUX was not part of the OPEN SOURCE and cost more than windows which os wold we buy. Think about it . My answer LINUX DISTRO .
My Reason for this is based on open sorce packages which are available for Linux . Sadly not a valid reason no open source Linux No open source Development
Thanks, Karnevil, JSMarshall, Dale, and all the others who replied. I'm trying Knoppix, which came with a book I bought the other day. So far, I like it alright. It doesn't seem to be able to find my printer though. It is a NEC SuperScript 2600. I looked on NEC webpage for a driver but found ZERO drivers for Linux.
My next step is to pick up a CD or DVD burner so I can download a few distros to find out which I like best. I don't mind paying a bit for the program in the end, but at this point, I feel that it should not be as expensive as M$ simply due to the fact that at this point, it doesn't have the superior programs catering to it......YET!
When I'm more experienced with Linux, I'll have an boat-load of opinions myself, and more than just speculation to back it up. Thanks again, gang!
Go to www.edmunds-enterprises.com. They have ditros very cheap. That is where I got Mandrake 9.2 from. With shipping it cost me about $14.00. This way you don't have to run out and buy a CD-R/W. Not that you shouldn't have one anyway. Most "how to" books on Linux distros sold at book stores come with a limited version of the Distro that you are learning how to use. It is not the full version but it contains enough for the average home user. They run on average about $25.00. but you also get the help of the book to guide you through. I think they say Sam's teach yourself Redhat 9 or whatever distro, is the best but the book for dummies is the cheapest.
I am a very BIG newbie. I installed RH8 about a year ago and use it as a desktop computer to do my everyday work. I have been fantastically impressed with its quality and stability. I have updated the kernel, GNOME, and a couple of the packages that came with RH8, up to a point that it seemed unnecesarry to update to RH9.
I still dont understand very well the hole Fedora thing, but as most newbies, I was kind of scared that I had to change to a new distro, after spending a year learning this one.
Some of the replies (specially post 71 by ucntcme) show that the people who really know what they are doing support the migration towards Fedora. But, some of the tecno-talk suggest that in order to keep updated my knowledge of linux is not enough (e.g. up2date/apt/yum...??).
I must admit I am a heavy GUI-user (relicts of a Windows up-bringing) and I use to update with the up2date GUI-package. But, regarding support, I have received A LOT of help from linuxquestions.org. So...here is where I get confused:
1. Should I migrate to Fedora, after my first year of RH8, or should I just be happy with my system and stay there...getting rpm-s from freshrpm's and update my system that way?
2. Is Fedora REALLY that similar to RH9 that I will not know the difference and I can still use all those lovely GUI applications to update packages, software, etc.
I would appreciate comments from experienced users (for me installing Linux is not a simple thing that I can do and undo in an afternoon, so migration will involve time, effort, sweat, tears, the hole shibang) on the best course of action for newbies using RH8 or 9 on a desktop system, but that are *interested in learning* and keeping up with the development of Linux but probably will never aid as active contributors.
This thread seems to be at least a two-headed hydra. Firstly, it started as a lament on the demise of Redhat as we know it. Then, secondly, Silverpenguin (and others since) has asked if RH9 is to be the last of the line what should newbies do.
I am personally sad to see RH go as a boxed distribution that one could buy in local stores around the world. I do have a boxed copy of SuSE 8.0 and while RTFM applies to me as much as to many other surfers of LQ, all my other distros come on CDs or DVD's attached to the Linux magazines that I buy or subscribe to. Anyway, out of personal preference, I always like to have a (however brief) set of printed documentation to read before and/or during installation. This may be due to the fact that I run all my Linux distros under VMware Workstation for Windows, and the install has to be in text mode before loading VMware tools for the GUI's.
I have been consulting in the area of financial computer systems for many years - since the days of lotus 123 and DbaseII. If I wanted to be able to experiment I had to have (licenced copies) of each piece of software that my clients were using and over the years this has cost tens of thousands to say nothing of the hardware that I have invested in. That said I think that I have, and most of my clients have, spent a fortune lining the pockets of a number of gentlefolk in Redmond.
When one learns of the overwhelming proliferation of 'nix servers in the internet revolution and now the open source projects such as apache, it seems to me that sooner or later Linux distributors will wake up to the fact that the only way that linux will become as prevalent as M$ is when it is just as easy (and hopefully cheaper) to load a distro with OOo/Star/Corel office packs onto a cheap Intel/AMD box.
Corporations around the world would love to replace their OS's and office software and servers with Open Source just as soon as an intuitive desktop/workstation solution is available. At the moment, I would guess that at least 90% of the PC's we use came with a version of M$ installed. There is still a dearth of PC and Laptop manufacturers that sell off-the-shelf linux boxes (i.e. no winmodems).
Apart from the availablity of source code (which allows any enterprising business to tweak a package for the ultimate in efficiency and hopefully security) Linux has, at least until recently, benefitted from two major advantages over other OS's, namely: distros were very frugal in their resource requirements (most ran on 486's and ran on under 128MB of RAM) and secondly one could build a server box with a seriously cut-down version of the latest linux kernel (this is in addition to the fact that one box could/can run a variety of servers concurrently - quite the contrary to M$ servers that need their own boxes and often specific OS's).
The reason that I think that we should all be a little bit sad in light of the recent Redhat news it that: most of the corporate executives (non-IT) have heard of Linux and probably 90% of them had heard of Redhat (or seen copies in their local Staples store). Most worrying is the fact that most of them thought that Open Source software meant that other people (users of their websites?) could read their programs - as if!
My fear in reading into Redhat's move is that they are not seeing the wood for the trees - Corporations tend to think in terms of a homogeneous approach to computer systems (luckily for them the best and most secure web server has been ported to run on windoze). Thus if one buys an 'enterprise' version of a Linux distro, does the old thinking that it can be cut-down (tuned) to be the most efficient server or whatever, still apply? We all know that M$ doesn't support 'doctored' software/OS's, no matter how much you pay - does this news mean that Redhat will go the same way. Are Redhat even thinking of offering a worksation package to go with their 'enterprise' OS distro? And if so, how much will it cost per seat?
I know that this will probably incite some of you software analyst/programmer types out there but one of my bugbears over the years has been a 'lock-in' mentality whereby only M$solutionproviders could learn the intricacies of a .dll or .exe - and VAR's were the only people who could custom program a (financial) package to make it meet a Corporation's needs. I had hoped, and still do for that matter, that Linux and the whole open source movement would result in a solution that would provide an environment in which anyone [with a knowledge of a language (perl, php, java, etc.) and/or operating system] could look at what someone did 3 months or 3 years before and the amend it to work using the latest releases of whatever software to meet the ever changing needs of the business using it.
Lastly, it worries me that by disassociating itself from the user fraternity (yes - that is us - from newbie to multi-distro and UNIX experts) will Redhat be cutting off its nose to spite its face? Without the likes of LQ how will a purchaser of future Redhat products find out how to use a wheel/scroll/trackball/touchpad mouse? I am convinced that the only reason people have cracked using intellimice under a variety of linux distros is through sheer necessity (scrolling though long posts such as this on their browsers!!!)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
