Al Miller wrote:
> I supported Red Hat for some years (with $ for their distros) until
> their corporate strategy changed.
It actually changed back in 2001 once SuSE released their Enterprise
Linux. That's when Red Hat's attempt to provide "enterprise" support
for a single, unified product model in Red Hat(R) Linux 6.2"E" failed.
The result was the introduction of Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux to
compete with SuSE, largely because that's what its customers preferred.
This was 2 years before the Fedora(TM) name change. Apparently, most
people didn't realize it until the name change -- even though the name
change was probably the smallest of changes, with most major ones
occurring prior.
So Fedora(TM) is really just a name change, largely for trademark
reasons. Other than Red Hat Linux 6.2"E", Red Hat has _never_ provided
commercial support other than installation-time and IHV/ISV
certification -- which was largely a nightmare for both Red Hat and
IHV/ISV and being phased out prior. Because these optionsreally started
to disintegrate a good 2 years before Fedora was even announced --
especially the support cycle on a 4-6 month product when 18 months was
what "enterprise" customers. You _can_ still get support for Fedora
form various sources, even Red Hat (largely through their consulting
division), although they will not offer Service Level Agreements
(SLAs). But even then, understand Microsoft itself does _not_ offer
SLAs, but only through OEMs and Partners -- Novell and Red Hat offer
SLAs directly.
As far as paid Red Hat Network (RHN) access, you now get it for _free_.
Fedora(TM) is not so much about community development and support than
community _distribution_. The idea is that if you want Red Hat's
distribution without paying for it, then that should be a 100% community
controlled approach, even if paid Red Hat developers release Fedora(TM)
Core, maintain official updates and even maintain "Legacy" packages
outside of their official role -- let alone you're still pulling from
100% Red Hat paid and provided hardware, broadband, etc... ;->
Understand that because of how FC/RHL relates directly to RHEL, even
down to the package versions, Red Hat employees still work on even
"Legacy" updates for old Red Hat Linux(R) 7.3 (CL2.3) because they are
updates for Red Hat Advance Server 2.1, just like "Legacy" updates to
Red Hat Linux 9 (CL3.1) and, now, Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2) are used for Red
Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and updates to Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1) and,
subsequently, Fedora Core 4 (CL4.2) will be to the forthcoming Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 4.
So the cool thing is that Fedora(TM) Core is Red Hat(R) Linux, right
down to the same development model. In fact, most of the Red Hat paid
developers that work on Fedora(TM) Core not only worked on Red Hat(R)
Linux prior, but they still use the prior internal nomenclature almost
in defiance. Fedora(TM) Core is merely Red Hat(R) Linux developed even
more openly, with a community in the greater Fedora Project built around
it -- with the name change being implemented for 100% trademark reasons
(long story short, Red Hat(R) let their commercial name be freely
redistributed more than any other commercial vendor).
Ultimately the proof is in the history of Red Hat, including Fedora
today. Red Hat employees have an righteous attitude of "underpromise,
overdeliver," and the deserve to have it -- at least since 1996 and the
release of Red Hat Linux 4.0 and their proven 0-1-2[-3] model. BTW, I
have a work-in-progress FAQ on this. Two sections you should read
include:
FC/RHL and RHEL Binary compatibility:
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html
The FC/RHL and RHEL Release model:
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-4.html
> Are there any preferred alternatives from the group as far as an
> alternative is concerned. I hear good things about Debian.
Any Debian or Fedora-based distro is going to offer:
1. Strict licensing guidelines (safe for commercial deployments**)
2. A solid community distribution model (Debian is more mature here)
3. Proven and highly regarded "regression testing" of packages
#1 is very important. A lot of Knoppix CDs and other distros really
include a lot of unlicensed software. Debian and Fedora have
community-based distribution methods that include only "free" software,
but still allow people to easily tap non-free-redistributable software
or even "questionable" licensed software -- but not without explicitly
knowing so.
#2 is really where Debian has "set the standard." Much of the
Fedora(TM) Project outside of the Fedora(TM) Core distribution that
directly replaces Red Hat(R) Linux is modeled after Debian approaches.
And even Red Hat offers full APT/YUM support in its RHN up2date and
other binaries -- so you can pull from 3rd party repositories while
resolving RHEL package dependencies.
[ Personal Note: I sure wish someone would offer an "enterprise" Debian
distribution of the caliber of RHEL or SLES. Ian's Progeny tries to
flip the model, one I happen to agree with, but a lot of companies have
strict "configuration management" approaches based on the legacy thought
of software, and that caters to the Red Hat and SuSE approach. ]
#3 Both Debian and Fedora projects have a 3-tag release model. Because
packages themselves might be stable doesn't necessarily mean they are
"integrated" with all others. That's where I really find Debian and
Fedora shine, so I prefer to stick with distributions that leverage
their work -- if not either of those two distributions themselves.
> I enjoy getting my hands 'dirty', which means I don't mind digging
> into the man pages. It's been a long while since I've posted. Work and
> such, but if nothing else, it's a great source of my enjoyment with
> computers and a welcome challenge.
If you have technical issues with Fedora, I don't blame you for looking
elsewhere. But if you're merely not considering Fedora because "it's
Red Hat(R)," understand Fedora(TM) Core is the logical path. Fedora(TM)
Core is not anymore "bleeding edge" than Red Hat(R) Linux before it.
Furthermore, if you are running Red Hat(R) Linux 7.3 (CL2.3) or Red
Hat(R) Linux 9, they are still being updated via the Fedora(TM) Legacy
project. Why? Because updates to CL2.3 and CL3.1 map directly into EL2
and EL3 updates. ;->
In a nutshell, Fedora(TM) was the final culmination of a set of
resolutions between the "suits" (the minority at Red Hat) and the
developers (remember, Red Hat is largely one big, distributed GPL
product that also happens to be a commercial company with a lot of money
to buy out software and turn it to GPL for anyone to use ;-) that had
already been evolving between 2001 and 2003. So far, the result has
been even better than I had assumed it would be.
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 00:33, Bleeber wrote:
> <disclaimer>
> The following is just my opinion.
> </disclaimer>
> I have tried all of the top ten distros and of those I would have to vote:
> 1. Debian
> Debian is wonderful. The install is quick and painless. Once
> install is complete you just apt-get the packages you want. This
> leaves you with a lean mean machine.
Anything Debian or Debian-based is going to be excellent.
> 2. Slackware
> Slackware is a very close second. Fast! Stable! The only thing
> that kinda turned me off was the directory structure (/etc in
> particular). Other than that used to be my fav. Would be still if I
> wasn't in the process of getting my RHCE and its weird trying to
> follow along when things aren't the same.
Don't forget about the LPI Certified Level 1 (LPIC-1) and Level 2
(LPIC-2) programs. LPIC-1 certified individuals actually outnumber
MCSAs -- about 35,000+ to 25,000 -- and it is popular worldwide (US
certified LPIC-1 individuals lag Germany and Japan).
If you're a LPIC-2, you're one of the few. There are only about 200 or
so of us in the US. If you're both a LPIC-2 and RHCE, then you're
extremely rare.
> 3. SuSe
> SuSe... I'm hoping flaming isn't allowed in the list! That being
> said, Suse is like a secure stable version of Windows. Control panels,
> Online Updaters, Pretty Colors :). (Yes other distros have these too
> but SuSe really pretties it up.) Any MS user can go to SuSe and have
> little to no problems. Since Novell owns SuSe now, it will probably
> only get better. Its really the new RedHat so to speak.
First off, Red Hat and Novell have traditionally addressed different
segments. Red Hat seemingly caters to more Solaris and other UNIX
environments, where Novell caters to the LAN file/print. It's all Linux
and of course they can be used for either. But most Sun environments
tend to favor Red Hat for various reasons (long story).
Secondly, Novell might be GPL'ing a lot of former SuSE value-add, but it
isn't about to GPL its "crown jewels." Red Hat, on the other hand,
keeps buying up technologies for $20M here, $30M there, and releasing
them 100% GPL -- including Netscape's directory technology (available
now to RHN subscribers, and AOL is letting Red Hat GPL it as of
2005Apr30 -- which will coincide close to the start of development on
Fedora(TM) Core 5, CL5.0).
So there's really no commercial company that could be the "new Red Hat"
-- at least not until they make their entire product line GPL. ;->
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:24:40 EDT