> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 07:28, Phil Mattison wrote:
> > Interesting debate. My 2-centavos: My first experience with RH was RH7.2
> > that came with a Dell server I bought. I installed it and signed up with
> > RHN. What I got was a constant stream of update notices along with
> > suggestions that I "upgrade" my service agreement, as if I had nothing
> > better to do than install patches and read security alerts all day long.
To
> > me this was not helpful. If they periodically offered "service packs"
> > similar to what those evil guys at Microsoft do, that automatically
update
> > *everything* that needs updating, that would be worth a few bucks.
Contrary
> > to popular myth, I had some fairly vexing stability problems as well. I
paid
> > full price for the RH8.0 boxed set when it came out, only to find from
this
> > very community that RH tends to do a sloppy job on major releases, and
they
> > need a lot of patches, just what I was hoping to avoid. I never
installed
> > it. Now I'm using Mandrake 9.2 and *much* happier with it so far. But
distro
> > is not religion to me, so I don't care to debate that.
> ---
> I don't know where you got your info from but this is all bad info from
> less than reliable sources.
>
Hmm... sounds a little like distro religion, but I'll take the bait.
Actually I consider my own experience among the most reliable of "sources"
for my own purposes. I tried up2date -u shortly after getting the system up
and running, and it crashed to whole system. I was never sure whether it
corrupted it as well, since I never tried it again. And sure enough, KDE was
the biggest source of instability.
> With RHN (any EL product)
> up2date -u
> or in GUI mode, click on the up2date applet in the panel
>
> updates all installed packages with any new updated packages whether be
> errata or security releases. I fail to see where this is any more
> difficult than Windows update.
>
> Now, the assertion that RH tends to do a sloppy job on major
> releases...if I recall, Red Hat was very much praised for the overall
> effectiveness of 8.0 release - the only grumbling was from KDE devotees
> who felt that KDE got the short shrift because of Red Hat's 'Blue Curve'
> configuration and the menu structures for X users.
>
> What you did was allow other people's impressions form your own.
> ---
> > To me, the big reason for using Linux at all, in fact for using a PC, is
the
> > ability to *do-it-myself* if I choose. If a software package is so
> > complicated that it is not practical to do it myself, that is no less
> > confining than a conventional license and closed source, and as far as I
am
> > concerned, no different. So if RH wants to make their customers
dependent on
> > them I have no problem with that. After all, it is the American way. But
> > let's call a spade a spade (no racial slur intended), and not masquerade
as
> > some kind of New-Age benefactor of Open Source Enlightenment. Maybe at
one
> > time RH was that, but you have to sign a deal with the Devil to go
public,
> > and they did.
> > --
> This is gobblety gook.
>
> Many packages are fairly easy to obtain the source, ./configure make,
> make test, make install and that's when you wonder why bother with
> things like rpm/apt-get etc.
>
> When it comes to some packages, like updating KDE or Gnome or something
> where there are so many dependencies and shared libraries, few people
> want to go through the hassle of compiling source. I don't care which
> distro you are using, if you are using X and a window manager/desktop
> manager, I am certain that you practically can't install them yourself
> and if you feel it is no less confining than closed source, welcome to
> the cell block #6.
>
Since switching distros I haven't tried KDE for more than a few minutes.
Gnome seems to work ok, and that's good enough. If the major packages are
practically impossible to compile unless you make a career of it, that sort
of shoots holes in the whole FOSS rationale, or at least in the argument
that there is value in source availablilty. And thanks for the invitation,
but I try to stay away from cell blocks, regardless of the color of the hats
they wear inside.
> Now - when you talk about RH wanting to make their customers dependent
> upon them, I fail to see how anything you said would make Mandrake or
> any other reasonably popular distro less dependent upon the packagers.
> It is after all, the packaging that makes the distro because the source
> is out there for all to use, modify and compile themselves. I stated a
> few days ago that the use of a distro is like a contract between the
> users and the packagers to give feedback and generally help improve the
> concept of how things and which things are being used and which things
> need to be changed. Software is after all, never perfect.
>
Actually I don't think the GPL says anything about being obligated in any
way if you simply use the software. Only if you distribute the software does
it come into play. I think the biggest advantage of FOSS is that you can try
it out and if it turns out to be garbage, or not what you need, you've lost
nothing but your time. Of course, time has value, and if the software
consumes too much of it, the benefit of its "free" nature declines.
> And lastly, when you speak of masquerading as some kind of New-Age
> benefactor of Open Source Enlightenment (ignoring your comment about
> signing a deal with the devil to go public), and while I am amused by
> your characterization, I think that it is far from the reality of what
> is happening. You are however, entitled to your opinion. My own opinion
> is that open source / FOSS - NEEDS Red Hat. They needed some company to
> have bundled on various server hardware shipped by the major players
> like IBM, HP, Dell etc. which offers consistent packaging, long term
> viability, commercial support etc. This is what some businesses want and
> Red Hat can offer it. Are there better financial models for this than
> Red Hat? Will someone step in and offer a better package for the
> hardware vendors and end users? Possibly - Red Hat doesn't have an
> exclusive lock on anything except being there at this moment in time.
>
Well, I didn't say they *are* the Devil. But now they are driven by their
shareholders, and can no longer afford to do things for idealistic reasons,
regardless of how people like you feel about it. And idealism seems to be a
big factor in the FOSS movement. I have seen the phrase "scum-sucking
profiteers" on this board. That describes every public corporation with the
possible exception of non-profits (even though a lot of those fit that shoe
as well.) Whether you think the profit motive is evil is a personal matter.
Everyone hates monopolists, but every public corporation wants to be one.
Personally I don't care how RH does business so long as they don't interfere
with my life. But I don't have to like them or even respect them.
--Phil M.
> Craig
(text/plain)