|
Home > Archive > Linux/Unix > November 2003 > End of line for Red Hat free Linux distro
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
End of line for Red Hat free Linux distro
|
|
| Boulware5 2003-11-04, 1:08 pm |
| This really sucks...
From The Register
Red Hat pulls plugs on Red Hat Linux product line
By John Lettice
Posted: 04/11/2003 at 11:36 GMT
Red Hat yesterday unveiled its answer to the vexed question of what it should do about its consumer line - dump it. This is not quite how CEO Matthew Szulik put it to The Register over lunch yesterday, nor indeed did he say flat out 'oh, by the way, we're shooting the Red Hat Linux distribution when North Carolina wakes up, bye now,' but that is indeed what the company did.
Red Hat maintenance and support for Red Hat linux 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0 will end as of 31st December 2003, and for Red Hat 9 as of 30th April 2004. "Red Hat does not plan to release another product in the Red Hat Linux line," says the 'you're fired' email sent out to The Register's Red Hat Network account yesterday. Red Hat Linux channels will remain open for six months after the product's end of life date, but no new errata will be posted after EOL, and no Red Hat Network support accounts could be bought or renewed as of yesterday. So it's very dead, very soon, and Red Hat is now about Red Hat Enterprise and... Fedora.
The move is a sensible one from the company's point of view because it provides a clear answer to the 'what do we do about the bit that doesn't work' question. It could perhaps have been done a little less brutally, and people who bought RH8 or RH9 both surely have good reason to be sore about how swiftly the support is vapourising (RH8 in particular - a year ago this looked like a product line with a future and a roadmap), but there really was no easy way to do it. A more honest way, probably...
What we have now are two lines, which you can term commercial (Enterprise) and developer (Fedora). The strategy for the Enterprise line has been pretty clear for some time now; it's the paid-for line that started with high end products but which has expanded downwards to smaller servers and workstation. It makes money, and 'buy workstation' is what Szulik tells us the people who'd been previously buying RHL should do in the future (although as we suggested earlier on, he didn't make it entirely clear how close that future actually was).
To some extent, selling workstation through retail channels provides some justification for claims that Red Hat hasn't got out of consumer or retail, but as it's just killed off a product line it surely must have got out of something. Or not. Red Hat's problem with RHL was that it wasn't associated with a clearly-defined 'something,' whereas Enterprise was and is. Hold onto the fact that Red Hat will be pitching a business focused product into the space vacated though, that this won't take up all of the spaced, and that the company is not proposing to have a product that takes Windows head-on in the general client OS market.
There's a possible gap there, one that Red Hat wasn't able to figure out how to address right now, and we'll likely be able to gauge how big it is as we see how hard and how much rival distros try to fill it. SuSE, for example, sees Red Hat's perceived lack of commitment to the enthusiasts as a major vulnerability to be exploited, although it's currently not about to launch a client-based consumer assault on Microsoft either.
Fedora is Red Hat's bid to cover this base, but frankly it would look a hell of a lot better and more convincing if RHL could somehow just magically disappear, and never have existed in the first place. By pulling out of RHL Red Hat has given Fedora a major credibility hill to climb. Which is a pity, because you can see how it might work in a parallel universe.
Fedora is the free, development strand of the Red Hat offering, "sponsored" by Red Hat but intended to be out there in the community with support almost entirely from the community. It will have a release cycle of two to three a year, and Szulik puts it more bracingly than that still. "Anyone can put a package in so long as they maintain it," and fixes will "just roll forward to the next version," so it'll ship when it's done and keep shipping. It is therefore being pitched as a fast-moving, cutting edge line that's in continued development, and in that sense could be seen as a possible techie heaven.
Case for the prosecution though. The support headache is being largely offloaded from Red Hat, and although Szulik says there are plenty Red Hat people involved, it seems fair to us to define their involvement as that of enthusiasts - it is not, in most cases, their day job. Developments from Fedora will go into Enterprise, so to some extent Red Hat will be getting development for free, and is throwing what's left of the old model back into the community while it concentrates on its ROI. The issues here are more complex than that, of course, but we did say this is the case for the prosecution, right? People are going to think and say these things, and it will be something Red Hat will have to deal with.
Fedora's development and release cycles and its support mechanisms clearly aren't going to be any kind of answer for people who want to run a business on Linux, whereas Enterprise's more sedate cycles, support model and product lifespan are. This is certainly a convenient piece of ringfencing for Red Hat, but you can't really count it as entirely deliberate. Businesses want long, defined lifecycles, clear roadmaps, support, while enthusiasts want fast development, so the convenience factor is built into the two logical answers Red Hat has come up with.
But it could have done it, and put it, better. Might we suggest telling customers, 'Sorry, we made a mistake, this is what we're doing now, this is how we propose to make it up to you' would have been a good place to start? | |
| Papiya 2003-11-04, 1:13 pm |
| I don't think it makes much difference. Red Hat is not the only Linux distro out there, although they do have the name recognition. If you want a free server, you still have Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, Mandrake, FreBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, et. al. I think it is a marketing move more than anything, but doubt if it will have much impact one way or the other. | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-04, 1:28 pm |
| As a Red Hat user, this means I'll be switching distros most likely. | |
| azimuth40 2003-11-04, 1:53 pm |
| Mom always liked Suse best; me to!
Does another shoe drop on RHCT's and RHCE's or do that just get a re-programmed to the party line. | |
| Papiya 2003-11-04, 1:54 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
As a Red Hat user, this means I'll be switching distros most likely.
Try Slackware . . . you probably will not go back to a "simpler" distro once you have. | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-04, 2:00 pm |
| I use to use slackware. Great distro. Thinking about trying out and learning FreeBSD, though. | |
| Papiya 2003-11-04, 2:07 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
I use to use slackware. Great distro. Thinking about trying out and learning FreeBSD, though.
Which is an even better distro! If you can use Slackware, you can use BSD. Apart from Plan9, BSD is my preferred OS. | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-04, 2:21 pm |
| FreeBSD 4.9 or FreeBSD 5.1 - which do you recommend? | |
| Papiya 2003-11-04, 2:39 pm |
| If you are new to it, must make sure you get the FreeBSD-STABLE release . . . there are two release trees . . . FreeBSD-CURRENT and FreeBSD-STABLE . . . the latter is what you want, since the current still has software in the process of being developed. Other than that, in general, the newer releases have bettewr features than the older ones, although I have not tried 5.1 yet. | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-04, 3:10 pm |
| SuSE is free? | |
| Papiya 2003-11-04, 3:13 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
SuSE is free?
If you download it.  | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-04, 3:38 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
SuSE is free?
Can't think of a distro that isn't free for download. | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-04, 4:38 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
Can't think of a distro that isn't free for download.
I could only find the eval. Anyone have a link? I thought it was pretty good. | |
|
|
|
|
| Tarzanboy 2003-11-04, 9:30 pm |
| Hopefully, this link might help a little: ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/current/README.FTP
Also:
quote:
If you want to install SUSE LINUX on several hosts in a network, download the entire installation directory together with all subdirectories. After you export these data to the local network with NFS, you can install SUSE LINUX on any client in the network.
Important note:
Download the files only if you can export the data to your local network with NFS! If you do not have this possibility or want to install SUSE LINUX on one host only, perform the FTP installation as described above.
It is not possible to generate installation CDs from a complete download.
Cheers,
TB | |
| prezbedard 2003-11-04, 10:08 pm |
| I just read this article on it. I believe I will stick with Red Hat and use the fedora Project. | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-07, 1:36 am |
| Welp I got FreeBSD up and running. It definately seemed more advanced than the "easier" distros like Red Hat and Mandrake. There is no graphical installer that walks you through it. On the plus side, compiling the kernel is easier on FreeBSD compared to Linux (I've already did it once). I like how you can't su unless you are a member of the wheel group; that is a nice security feature that I'm surprised other distros haven't adopted yet. Plan to print out the handbook and teach myself it. It's different from Linux yet similar in some aspects. | |
| Papiya 2003-11-07, 8:00 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
Welp I got FreeBSD up and running. It definately seemed more advanced than the "easier" distros like Red Hat and Mandrake. There is no graphical installer that walks you through it. On the plus side, compiling the kernel is easier on FreeBSD compared to Linux (I've already did it once). I like how you can't su unless you are a member of the wheel group; that is a nice security feature that I'm surprised other distros haven't adopted yet. Plan to print out the handbook and teach myself it. It's different from Linux yet similar in some aspects.
The restriction of not allowing members of other groups to use su in Linux I found strange . . . what's the point of the group if not for security purposes??? A lot of things are easier in BSD once you get used to it, in general I prefer it to Linux, but make sure and research all of your questions before asking any in public forums. Most BSD users do not tend to be kind to newbies. | |
| Tech Ranger 2003-11-09, 3:10 pm |
| I, too, am a moron. Can someone please explain what it is about this stuff is so exciting. Maybe I'll get involved. You guys seem so passionate about Linux. | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-09, 3:13 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
I, too, am a moron. Can someone please explain what it is about this stuff is so exciting. Maybe I'll get involved. You guys seem so passionate about Linux.
I tryed a couple of times, however it must be an exlusive club. I keep getting kicked out.  | |
| azimuth40 2003-11-09, 3:21 pm |
| Calls for a top ten list. Here is mine
10. Used it in school
9. Required to use it at work
8. Real programmer
7. Closet programmer (scripts etc.)
6. Web Master and you are cheap
5. Business user and you are cheap
4. Dislike Microsoft
3. Like the command line
2. Want to be different and understand your system by seeing all/most of the code.
And the number 1 reason Linux is neat is
1. Control Control control | |
|
| if you don't know the enemy, how can you wish to defeat it!!!!
plus, it looks neat with all that eye candy stuff wasting cpu cycles. | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-09, 6:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by mikop
if you don't know the enemy, how can you wish to defeat it!!!!
plus, it looks neat with all that eye candy stuff wasting cpu cycles.
Doesn't have to be "eye candy". There's plenty of lightweight window managers that dont waste cpu cycles and can look just as bland as you want. | |
|
| a lot of fun that would be.
"hey look at my ugly xfce or *insert your choice* (the beauty of linux! *cough* choices galore to the point of confusion for the average user!)
Hey! I can open multiple xterm! rock on!
techranger, the *beauty* of linux is definitely in KDE (say no to gnome!), but they according to the likes of pincess angry, you would just be a nother gimpy linux poseur cuz real linux guru say no to GUI
see how many apps occur in this short conversations? won't it be great if we can just say *windows*? but of course that goes against the spirit of creating confusion, oh I mean opensource
editorial: God, I am great!!! *hug self* | |
|
|
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
If the average user gets confused, well then Linux isn't for them.
See TechRanger, that is evil know as opensource.
what is opensource developer's response to everything?
don't like it, do it yourself.
go ask any developer why they design it somewhere, they would ask
you paying for my sh*t? if not, wtf you talking to me ?
want to add certain function? like installer? like backup, or whatever little function? tuff, you want it, here is the code, code yourself that function but stop bugging me.
TechRanger, just say no to linux! do not be suck in with all these hype!!!!!!! | |
| Boulware5 2003-11-09, 7:35 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by mikop
See TechRanger, that is evil know as opensource.
what is opensource developer's response to everything?
don't like it, do it yourself.
go ask any developer why they design it somewhere, they would ask
you paying for my sh*t? if not, wtf you talking to me ?
want to add certain function? like installer? like backup, or whatever little function? tuff, you want it, here is the code, code yourself that function but stop bugging me.
TechRanger, just say no to linux! do not be suck in with all these hype!!!!!!!
LOL don't listen to him. Give it a try! Almost every function in Windows is in Linux in some way or another. | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-09, 7:39 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
LOL don't listen to him. Give it a try! Almost every function in Windows is in Linux in some way or another.
Linux is the devil's operating system.
Muhahaha!
Repent Tech Ranger! Repent! | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Linux is the devil's operating system.
if I were a zealot, I would say
"It's GNU/Linux IDIOT!!! FOOLS!!! you are NOT WORTHY!!!!"
"Now, raise your right hand and repeat after me."
" I sell my soul to the devil, I sell my soul to the devil, I sell my soul to the devil"
"now, the first act you will do is go register as communist/facist/whatever and say NO to capitalism!"
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/Images/saintignucius.jpg | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-09, 8:20 pm |
| The devil went down to Gimpville
He was lookin' for a soul to steal
He was in a bind
'Cause he was way behind
And he was willin' to make a deal
When he came upon this young man
Sawin' on a fiddle and playin' it hot
And the devil jumped
Up on a hickory stump
And said boy let me tell you what... | |
| ccieToBe 2003-11-10, 1:23 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
I, too, am a moron. Can someone please explain what it is about this stuff is so exciting. Maybe I'll get involved. You guys seem so passionate about Linux.
1. You don't have to install a new security patch every 3 days.
2. It's free.
3. It can run on less expensive hardware.
4. For a lot of applications, you can throw the entire OS onto a compact flash card and eliminate a frequent point of failure. Trying doing that with Windows.
5. The "do one thing and do it well" philosophy makes it easy to throw together quick hacks to solve problems that would be a nightmare otherwise.
6. Having the source available means you can compile your OS and and applications to run more effectively on your specific hardware.
7. Being command line driven makes remote administration over a crappy POTS connection when you're half way across the country easy.
8. Being command line driven makes automating tasks easy.
9. Since the code's open source, you don't have to worry about a company going out of business and leaving your data stranded in abandonware.
10. You can view and modify the source code. | |
|
| 1. patches
RedHat advisory
SlackWare advisories
CERT vulnerability
link doesn't work, but go to cert.org, click vulnerability, search linux. on the front page, advisory and incident report (top right) you will notice, Microsoft, SSL, Sendmail. heh but linux ppl will tell you qmail > sendmail so it is irrelevant even tho sendmail is still used widely
2. Free
It is relative... why do they sell box versions for 50 bucks, oh I forgot, only those too stupid actually pay for it right? (Techranger, notice the general attitude of linux users... this thread and others...)
3. Able to run on old hardware.
Well, windows terminal server, citrix etc all can utilize old 486 to run in GUI mode for minial cost... In the overall scheme of things, imagine if you are in some 3rd world country... wooohooo, hook them up with 100 486running linux in command line, vs running them in as a citrix network, all the beauty of GUI.
4. embedded os is where its at. linux is well suited for specialized applicance, can't argue with this...
5. some rather like the integrated solutions.
6. out of touch with technology advancement, you would find a lot of the web applications, back end server softwares, etc etc is web driven. ( I have experience with Vitria Businessware, I expect BEA Weblogic and others are much alike) VPN nullify a lot of the argument also. Dial up access with GUI Interface is not that bad... is it slower than command line interface? of course, but sigh... you would think this argument would be valid if we are all still using 14.4 or older modem... and of course lesson 101 in all classes, it is easy to make type entry mistake.
8. subjective. some like to visualize
9. eeer there are plenty of abandoned project, but heh techranger, remember what I said, it is open source, don't like it, code it yourself. so yes, in that sense, no project is ever abandoned because you are always free to continue it... what does it really mean to end users and corporations? that there is really no one responsible to deliver and maintain the software you are using... unless you pay for service contracts which is the business model for most opensource software... which kind of nullify the free argument heh...
http://www.mozdev.org/projects/abandoned.html
http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.ph...ce=discontinued
10. Don't like something, unlike bitching at microsoft, you are SOL... open source, code it yourself! as above, no accountability...
Do I like linux, yes, do I believe in opensource? sort of... but what is most important is that there is no one package fit all and what I object the most is when people buy into something without a clear idea of what they are getting into... it is easy to jump on the bandwagon, it is easy to present something they way they see it or frame the issue in such a way to be entirely favorable... or unfavorable in my case install, research, read, apply and judge for yourself. so yes, in the end, I recommend you to try linux and see for yourself. ( I just like to argue the points...) download knoppix http://www.knoppix.org/ which is bootable and see if you can dig it. you can look at http://examnotes.net/article1021593.html to see prezebeard running knoppix and see my brief adventure in boredom and the prutty desktops of linux. KDE > Gnome :P | |
| Papiya 2003-11-10, 7:44 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tech Ranger
I, too, am a moron. Can someone please explain what it is about this stuff is so exciting. Maybe I'll get involved. You guys seem so passionate about Linux.
The same thing that is exciting about Windows in most cases. It's fun to use. | |
| Papiya 2003-11-10, 7:46 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Linux is the devil's operating system.
That's BSD. | |
| prezbedard 2003-11-10, 10:01 am |
| I agree
free/ low cost is relative. Free in the sense you are not tied down by what you can do with the os (# of computers installed, copy, distribute, license agreements, etc) then it does offer more "freedom". Not just anyone can afford to buy a $200 OS. The key is education in the matter. I am still realtively new but so far I like linux. I don't hate windows. There are ups and downs of both. | |
| Papiya 2003-11-10, 10:27 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by prezbedard
I don't hate windows. There are ups and downs of both.
Agreed. It's just an OS, not a religion. | |
| ruscorp 2003-11-10, 10:57 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Papiya
Agreed. It's just an OS, not a religion.
That's right! It's a cult dammit! | |
| Papiya 2003-11-10, 11:37 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
That's right! It's a cult dammit!
Complete with daemons, no less! | |
| ccieToBe 2003-11-10, 12:23 pm |
| First of all, a lot of the specific references below are actually to FreeBSD and/or OpenBSD, but Linux is similar enough so that it applies equally.
1. My point was that Windows needs to be patched a lot more often.
2. I download the software that runs on all of my *nix servers for free. If you'd rather not spend 20 minutes doing this (yeah, time is money, but then again it also takes time to order the CDs...), or would like to financially support the project, that's your option. You're not obligated to pay anything.
3. I'm thinking in terms of servers here. Nearly any desktop OS can fulfill the dumb terminal role on old hardware. I run a number of 100MHz 486 routers in my network, and they take whatever I can throw at them. I also overbuilt my mail server...it has 32MB of RAM, and doesn't page
4. Hey, we do agree on something
5. Can't argue with that.
6. I assume this was in response to #7. While GUIs may be usable over dial up, they sure slow me down. I use VNC to remotely administer some Windows boxes, which has significant enough lag time to slow me down. The same is not true when I SSH into a *nix box.
8. There's nothing subjective about it. Automating tasks is trivial when they're all command line based - just copy all the commands into a shell script and execute it. I'm not even sure how to automate interfacing with a GUI.
9. I guess we're in agreement on the details, but not what this means for the big picture. What this means is, if development stops on an open source project, you still have the source code, so you have the option of hiring a programmer to make any necessary changes, and don't have to worry about the impossibility of getting additional licenses. When a closed source program becomes abandonware, your SOL.
10. When's the last time Microsoft added a feature because you requested it? If you know how to program, or have a programmer on staff, you can add the feature yourself. If not, you can hire one to add that specific feature instead of writing an entirely new application or guessing how the closed source program operates. | |
| prezbedard 2003-11-10, 1:16 pm |
| quote:
I'm not even sure how to automate interfacing with a GUI.
Scheduled Tasks / Task Scheduler | |
| Papiya 2003-11-10, 1:30 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by prezbedard
Scheduled Tasks / Task Scheduler
That only allows you to use the tools that the programmers provided you with. With the bash shell you can customize things a bit more. You can do this with BAT files as well, though, although they are not as flexible. | |
|
| Dunno if you've heard - SuSe was bought by Novell for $210 million | |
|
|
| Tarzanboy 2003-11-11, 11:33 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
6. I assume this was in response to #7. While GUIs may be usable over dial up, they sure slow me down. I use VNC to remotely administer some Windows boxes, which has significant enough lag time to slow me down. The same is not true when I SSH into a *nix box.
Depending on what you are wanting to accomplish and whether you want to install it, but you could use SSH/SFTP to connect to a Windows box for remote administration. At the very least you could use the SSH as a wrapper to secure your VNC connection although it will slow things down a bit more.
Cheers,
TB | |
| ccieToBe 2003-11-11, 12:04 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Tarzanboy
Depending on what you are wanting to accomplish and whether you want to install it, but you could use SSH/SFTP to connect to a Windows box for remote administration. At the very least you could use the SSH as a wrapper to secure your VNC connection although it will slow things down a bit more.
Cheers,
TB
Good point, but SSH or SFTP by itself doesn't always work since you can't do a lot of things through the CLI in Windows. Tunnling VNC through SSH or SSL is a very good idea. |
|
|
|
|
