Does RedHat Still Deserve The Title Of 'The Linux'?
 

Well RedHat is no longer the first link on google for Linux, It is no longer the only commercial entity behind a distro (Canotical also doesn't charge people to use Ubuntu). According to the easy World Domination 201 "RedHad Yanked MP3 Playback and slunked off into the server market" close quote. Also Ubuntu (n' Flavors) is third most used OS in the world, Second on distrowatch, and the only linux distro I have seen trying to make a television version. RedHat has what standing behind it? RPM & LSB? Now I'm not trying to kill RedHat here I'm just trying to show you my side of view, ok!?! So does RedHat reallllly still deserve the title of 'The Linux'?

I didn't even know that Red Hat had this title. If there would be such a title as "The Linux" then I would think this title would be deserved by Debian, the distribution that the largest part of the distros out there (including Ubuntu) is build from.

By that argument, Windows is best :rolleyes:

Of course Red Hat is the best. Why else would I be using CentOS?

Red Hat (and Fedora) contributes more code for linux in general than ubuntu does in its dreams. It doesnt matter who has the most users, the majority of the code stil comes from Red Hat.

You dont have to pay to use Red Hat. I would suggest that anyone who doesnt want to pay Red Hat for support should use CentOS, but thats just my opinion. Red Hat also makes money from training and integration services. Canonical also charges people for (offical) support, and training.

In the end, the majority of ubuntu is just repacked debian anyway. If canonical disappeared tomorrow, Red Hat wont care. Niether will Debian. No Debain? Canonical is stuffed for some time. No Red Hat? That would affect ALL the distros more than any other single entity going away.

*edit- I am not a Red Hat or Fedora user, I almost always use Debian. I still think that they diserve a huge amount of respect for the role they play.

Oh please... :scratch:

Ubuntu does indeed have a large following but I'd say it is more used in personal systems than in corporate environments. It isn't even number 2 in that market - Suse is. RHEL is number one. If you look at applications aimed at corporate Linux environments you'll see most of them are written to run on RHEL and somewhat less on Suse and almost none on Ubuntu. Just because Canonical offers commercial support doesn't mean that they are the big kid on the block or anywhere near it. I do know of some shops that use Ubuntu for things other than personal systems but I'd say they are a minority.

You also forget the Fedora project was started and continues to be supported by RedHat and like RHEL is a derivation of RedHat 9 so you'd have to take Fedora installations into account and I'd say there are quite a few of those around. Fedora is used as a testbed for what ends up in RHEL. Also things such as CentOS, Scientific Linux and OEL (Oracle Enterprise Linux) are derived from RHEL.

I doubt RedHat was ever "The Linux". I've been hearing of Slackware as long as I have RedHat and in the early days I knew folks that tried both and picked the one they wanted. Having said that however, I'll also say that Ubuntu will never be "The Linux" simply because there are so many distros to choose from (including Debian from which Ubuntu and its variants are derived) that you'll never get consensus on any ONE being the best.

Did Red Hat have the title "The Linux"?

Some companies think that Sarbanes–Oxley and/or other government rules mean a company should not depend on a major software product (such as an OS) unless they are PAYING a supplier to be responsible for that product.
If you insist on paying someone to be responsible for the Linux OS you use, it ought to be Red Hat. Sure there are other entities you can pay to stand behind their Linux distro, but there don't seem to be benefits to choosing one of those in place of Red Hat.

If you don't want to pay for a Linux server distro, I think Centos is the clear best choice, and obviously it wouldn't exist without Red Hat. So maybe Red Hat deserves to be "The Server Linux". But it is simpler to say "Red Hat" or "Red Hat based distribution".

I've used a lot more Debian based distributions. I think Debian is a better platform when basing a distribution on an existing distribution, as well as being a pretty major distribution on its own. I don't hear a lot of people identifying a distro as "The Linux". If I had heard such a phrase without explanation, I would have been more likely to guess they meant Debian.

I mainly use Mepis (which is based on Debian) and Centos (which is based on Red Hat, but in a much closer sense than Mepis is based on Debian).

False premise? Reference, please.

Oh, I forgot a reason why Ubuntu can't be "The Linux": If they would be they would have to mention Linux at least once on their website.

Basically I refuse to play games like "my car is much more better than yours as it is red".
Each distro has it's points.

So everybody can chosse, what one think fits best.

And please do not use counts from distrowatch.
And if you feel you have to, first read about how these counts are done.

There are much more server running SUSE (and don't mix this with openSUSE) as they are sold by Novell.
And they do this business for a long time. They even brought Linux to the IBM 360/390 series.
But all of this installations will hardly be counted.

And this holds true for other distros too.
I just named SUSE as I'm a long time user of openSUSE / SUSE.

And never forget: all these operating systems are GNU/Linux

The word Linux scares Non-Computer-Geeks away (in >50% of the time).
And they do: The Package Discription For linux-image-generic. :)
Like I said "I'm not trying to kill RedHat". World Domination 201, Distrowatch Review, etc call RedHat "The Linux". As for people makeing software mainly for RedHat : LSB. Distrowatch was just an extra thing because I felt like I needed a argument...
I could not find out how to get RedHat withought paying the 50$ for one desktop, then again I didn't really need it so I didn't look that hard.

Use CentOS or Scientific Linux.

Or use Red Hat free trial for 30 days.

I don't understand the point of Red Hat for a Desktop. Their focus is on servers.

Fedora can be a very nice desktop distribution, but also can be a bit bleeding edge.

So maybe you also don't know any particular point to desktop Red Hat.

Bad idea, because of updates. If you want an actual "trial" of Red Hat, to test its suitability for some purpose with the intent of either dumping it or paying for it (depending on how will it does) the 30 day free trial makes sense.
If you just want free Red Hat, the free trial is the wrong place to start.
Free Red Hat Enterprise Server is obviously Centos.
I don't know what a supported Red Hat desktop system contains, so I won't try to guess what a free version of that is.

That is exactly the "point" of Red Hat for a Desktop: it is less "bleeding edge" than Fedora, with paid long-term support. :)

You took my quote out of context and did not notice that I recommended CentOS in the previous sentence. Obviously a 30 day free trial is not a permanent solution; I shouldn't have to point that out. ;)

I thought Slackware was THE LINUX? ;)

Slackware is The Oldest Linux, as in it is the longest surviving distro, its even older if you count it's parent: SLS.
Also read this close quote from World Domination 201:
RedHat ripped mp3 playback and slunked off into the server market.
RedHat does have a Desktop Version, but I'm guessing it is still server orented.