Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dag Wieers Scoffs at Coordinated Linux Release Proposal

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the point-five-year-plan dept.

Operating Systems 240

Nic Doye writes "Dag Wieers responds to Mark Shuttleworth's recent request to ask major Enterprise Linux distributions to synchronise releases, claiming that it 'is no more than a wish to benefit from a lot of work that Novell and Red Hat are already doing in the Enterprise space.' He's confessing to playing Devil's Advocate here, but it is an interesting view from someone with a large amount of experience in the Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS space."

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

suppositories (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450418)

they melt in your ass, not in your hand

Re:suppositories (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450750)

No, fellow AC, they could quite possibly melt in your hand before your hand ever breaches the gluteal folds and makes its way into the rectal recess.

Aurora linux ? (-1, Offtopic)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450484)

This one http://auroralinux.org/ [auroralinux.org] was developed by Morgan Stanley, perhaps the most enterprise-y possible....

Who really benefits? (5, Insightful)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450490)

claiming that it 'is no more than a wish to benefit from a lot of work that Novell and Red Hat are already doing in the Enterprise space.'

Red Hat has not provided a consumer desktop distribution in over 5 years. It used to be that most new comers were introduced to Linux via Red Hat. I would wager that today most new comers are introduced to Linux via Ubuntu. When those people who are introduced to Ubuntu have an opportunity to influence decisions in the enterprise, I would expect that many (or most, depending on the environment) are recommending RHEL because of the tremendous brand recognition within the IT world. (I know that Red Hat is not the only game in town, but they are far more prevalent in the enterprise and any other distro.) After all "it's all Linux."

So, I would say that Red Hat has already benefited from Ubuntu's run away popularity in the space the Red Hat vacated 5 years ago. What's wrong with a little reciprocity?

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450612)

Red Hat has not provided a consumer desktop distribution in over 5 years.
Huh? What's wrong with Fedora?

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

Nossie (753694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450668)

enough that they had to change the name -- apparently

Re:Who really benefits? (4, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450756)

enough that they had to change the name -- apparently
Could you elaborate?

AFAIK probably the biggest reason Red Hat changed the name to Fedora was to eliminate brand confusion with RHEL.

It's not a good business decision to have two similarly labelled products out, especially with software when that usually indicates that one is crippleware. Long after the switch to Fedora there were still stores selling Red Hat 9 because they were confused by the whole Fedora/Red Hat/Red Hat Enterprise Linux thing.

Re:Who really benefits? (1, Interesting)

Nossie (753694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451068)

That's what I don't understand about the name change... unless RedHat intentionally wanted to re-brand Fedora as inferior. They couldn't block 'freeloaders' so make the *free* version seem inferior and suddenly 'poor' people would rather pirate RHEL, download centos or go to another distro.

Give people more credit, especially those trying Linux for the first time.

Redhat Consumer Desktop (don't like consumer, but how about 'Redhat Fedora Desktop' ?)
Redhat Server
Redhat Enterprise Server (LTS)

What's wrong with that? people don't stop buying desktops because they can afford racks. They buy desktops because they cater towards a consumers needs such as graphics rather than power/wattage p/ inch. OS's are the same... You want to download the enterprise server and likely half the functions you want/need will be disabled by default (and vice versa). You want fancy effects, media players and consumer featured stuff you buy the desktop...

Consumers = Server is inferior
Enterprise = Desktop/workstation is inferior

No offence to fedora users (although admittedly I haven't used any rpm based distro in eons) but from my own perspective it would appear RH outsourced the 'consumer' market because they weren't getting any return and in doing so alienated by choice their own brand.

Look at this site:
http://fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org]

and then look right down at the very bottom of the page, just squint your eyes:

"
Copyright © 2008 Red Hat, Inc. and others. All Rights Reserved. Please send any comments or corrections to the websites team.

The Fedora Project is maintained and driven by the community and sponsored by Red Hat. This is a community maintained site. Red Hat is not responsible for content.
"

JIMHO, and this is jimho, RedHat appears to have actively DILUTED their own desktop OS on purpose rather than avoid brand confusion.

I'm sure this has been a discussion beaten into the ground, but you did ask for me to elaborate. I have no disrespect for Fedora or its abilities as an OS but I dont believe RH could distance themselves any further without risking an 'unofficial' out of their control distro of Linux

Re:Who really benefits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451334)

Desktop linux is really only wanted by the student/basement crowd and those folks want bleeding edge and quick revisions. Which is just the opposite of the RHEL product. Changing the branding is consistent with idea that "RedHat" equals stable & supported.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

Nossie (753694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451430)

So ubuntu desktop rules the roost because redhat forgot its roots? Would anyone go as far as to say Fedora according to RedHat is neither 'stable' and/or 'supported'?

I just found this, haven't been on the RH site for a number of years
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/ [redhat.com]

Soo... quantaman, what is wrong with Fedora? Seems like an excuse to proprietise an OS without actually taking the code away from those that wrote it. If they just wanted to sell services, surely they'd just offer Fedora w/ paid support?

Again, I'm not trying to bait or flame here, been out the RH loop for a while and just curious really.

Re:Who really benefits? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451518)

How in the hell would you sell paid support for an OS that goes out of date every 6 months?

Keep in mind that some "enterprise" customers are still perfectly happy with Windows 2000. They don't want Fedora and Fedora doesn't want them. Therefore seperate branding makes perfect sense.

Re:Who really benefits? (1, Insightful)

Nossie (753694) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451606)

Does that not go against the whole 'windows in the home, windows in the workplace' rhetoric that keeps getting thrown about though?

I'm not saying you're wrong but ubuntu enterprise is hardly losing money, I'm just kinda nostalgic and sad I guess that Ubuntu is basking in the former 'linux' glory of the RedHat of yesteryear.

I do believe in different codebases for each application - different strokes for different folks and all that but going so far as to completely distance yourself from the free community just seems well -- greedy and possibly even suicidal!

people not in the know or dont need stability will go for ubuntu (5 years ago I'd have said RH)
people in the know but dont need stability will go with ubuntu/fedora/suse/mandriva/slackware/ (insert fav distro here)
people in the know and with their own support will go with centos
and those that would prefer not to think about cost or are big enough to get cheaper services will go for RedHat/solaris/Suse/AIX...

A tiny bit of competitive pie for the biggest player.

I just don't understand why you think it makes perfect sense, it just smells like they are trying to do what Sun have done with OpenSolaris.

ahh well :-| I just like seeing competition in the OS space, having all these players (hell inc haiku) these days makes me smile.

Re:Who really benefits? (4, Insightful)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451450)

That's what I don't understand about the name change... unless RedHat intentionally wanted to re-brand Fedora as inferior.
Red Hat said that they are abandoning the desktop market, as it is not profitable. Fedora is not Red Hat, and Fedora is not being abandoned. Fedora is a bleeding-edge testbed for what will be in the next RHEL. That's why there are over 100 MB of updates every week. Just don't run yum update for a week and see it!

The problem with abandoning the desktop, in my opinion, is that many new linux users are first exposed to Ubuntu. When they go to install a server they will then use either Ubuntu Server or Debian. RPM will be foreign to them.

Re:Who really benefits? (4, Informative)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451628)

This abandoning the desktop talk really annoys me. Desktop is just a buzzword all the while redhat maintains and writes half of gnome and desktop software, where you think network manager came from or pulse audio, the suspend features in gdm, UI, who funds and built freedesktop.org? Just cause they dont have a sticker that says "desktop linux" doesn't mean they abandoned it. look up redhats contributions http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions [fedoraproject.org] sometime.

It's quite simple really they dont want fresh OSS software to be associated with the red hat brand. Fedora will have bugs and be considered "unstable" to many who are looking for no noticeable bugs in thier OS. If fedora was called redhat desktop people would be going around saying i tried to install "red hat" and the instal failed.. they wont differentiate redhat desktop from redhat server in mindshare, it will redhat will lose its brand as a stable serious company. This way I get my fast moving OS and i know what it is, yet newbies wont start branding redhat as a P.O.S cause it didn't install on their emachine.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450726)

little reciprocity? So you're saying Ubuntu doesn't already from all the upstream work RedHat does? Do they need to hire developers to work on Ubuntu or what?

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Interesting)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450770)

claiming that it 'is no more than a wish to benefit from a lot of work that Novell and Red Hat are already doing in the Enterprise space.'

Red Hat has not provided a consumer desktop distribution in over 5 years. It used to be that most new comers were introduced to Linux via Red Hat. I would wager that today most new comers are introduced to Linux via Ubuntu. When those people who are introduced to Ubuntu have an opportunity to influence decisions in the enterprise, I would expect that many (or most, depending on the environment) are recommending RHEL because of the tremendous brand recognition within the IT world. (I know that Red Hat is not the only game in town, but they are far more prevalent in the enterprise and any other distro.) After all "it's all Linux."

So, I would say that Red Hat has already benefited from Ubuntu's run away popularity in the space the Red Hat vacated 5 years ago. What's wrong with a little reciprocity?

Insightful is deserved. Or own the desktop at home, will drag Linux into the enterprise. Something RedHat and Novell have missed completely. If they continue to do so, many might just drag in Ubuntu... I would and will.

If anything, they should put out a home distro cheap and capitalize on Vista's shortcomings.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450842)

Something RedHat and Novell have missed completely.

http://fedoraproject.org/ [fedoraproject.org] http://www.opensuse.org/ [opensuse.org]

Is there something I'm missing completely here, or are the comments above complete non-sequiturs?

Re:Who really benefits? (5, Interesting)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450894)

Is there something I'm missing completely here, or are the comments above complete non-sequiturs?

Neither distro you mention, IMHO, is targeting home users in the way that Ubuntu is. You don't see friendly smiling people holding hands, one or two clicks to download, plain english on the front page and so on, to the degree that Ubuntu's homepage has it. You don't get offered free discs (I got 5 once, left them on the coffee-room table and after two months half the department was using Ubuntu).

Opensuse.org: Nice front page, three options - I clicked download - then I look at a complex table and it fails the WifeTest(TM) dismally.

Fedoraproject.org: When I did my WifeTest(TM), she went to fedora.com, then fedora.org (nice pictures of Mario but no distro). Then we found the site and again, she doesn't know what a freakin i386 is. "I have a laptop, does it say laptop?", she says.

Ubuntu.com: she guessed the right domain, clicked download after looking at the screen for a few minutes, then figured "I must have a standard computer" and started downloading. WifeTest(TM) said she would have bought or requested free CD's except she knew I could burn an ISO for her.

They are good, I agree with you - no worse than Ubuntu, probably. But marketing is everything when like is against like.

Re:Who really benefits? (3, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450928)

I clicked download - then I look at a complex table and it fails the WifeTest(TM) dismally.

Tell your wife to enable Javascript.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450940)

Tell your wife to enable Javascript.
*grumble grumble* good point.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451162)

Anyway, if you reckon it's hard to work out how to download an iso from Fedora, try this lot [microsoft.com] .

Their disto still seems fairly popular though, so being more complicated isn't necessarily as big an impediment as you might think.

Re:Who really benefits? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451288)

try this lot [microsoft.com]. Their disto still seems fairly popular though

Tell me about it, been trying to get this one working for ages. Firstly, my friend tells me it's only available on bittorrent, instead of just downloading it from their site. Which is a bit weird, but whatever.

Where I'm really having trouble is with the package manager. How do I add a software repository in that add/remove programs thing? It doesn't seem to mention what type of packages are compatible with it either. Am guessing RPM or DEB, but which is it, maybe someone could enlighten me?

To be honest, I'm about to give up on this Windows thing, it's just not ready for the mainstream.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451000)

Then we found the site and again, she doesn't know what a freakin i386 is.


Fedora is a fairly geeky distro. I use it and like it. However, when my non-tech sister wanted to try Linux, I got her Ubuntu. I still have to help her a little, but for the most part she can handle it herself, which I wouldn't expect with Fedora. Different distros designed for different people. Fedora's a geeky test bed, Ubuntu's for Windows refugees. Gentoo, of course, is for gamers. Pick the one that's right for you, which is more than you can do with Windows.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451040)

Fedora's a geeky test bed, Ubuntu's for Windows refugees. Gentoo, of course, is for gamers.

Yep. I used to use Fedora when I had more time and loved it a lot - for all the pain it gave me then.

But to enter the enterprise (not just IT departments) average non-geeks have to get used to the product before it becomes attractive to average non-geeky workplaces.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451512)

Fedora's a geeky test bed, Ubuntu's for Windows refugees. Gentoo, of course, is for gamers.
Huh. That's almost entirely the opposite of how I'd put it.

That is: Gentoo is a geeky test bed, Ubuntu is for gamers and other Windows refugees, and Fedora is the upgrade path for RedHat's non-Enterprise Linux.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

Pros_n_Cons (535669) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451690)

hows that wife test when she pops in her favorite game CD? does Ubuntu get "confusing" again? I guess ubuntu abandoned the desktop market cause its not idiot proof just like fedora and suse.

Point im making is a nice webpage doesn't fix everything for desktop users. How about the ubuntu dev's start contributing the kinda code suse and redhat do to gnome and kde respectively? Does everyone go around saying Ubuntu abandonded the server market cause they dont have hardly any kernel contributions? Fedora is for a different segment of user. If ubuntu wants to be desktop linux then they have to deal with all the problems that come with that including fixing the "bugs" windows users have like "how come yahoo voice doesn't work" or how come thier favorite .exe is failing. This is a very hard userbase to take care of and redhat and suse know that from experience. If ubuntu wants the title of desktop linux then they have to deal with it when people aren't happy.

Re:Who really benefits? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451578)

Have you used ubuntu, opensuse and fedora? While most things just works in Ubuntu opensuse and fedora are pretty unstable. They arent fit for your average user since they nowadays demands a fair share of tinkering to get them working. Fedora 9 for example have serious outstanding bugs and userproblems like SELinux blocking dhcp requests and Nvidia drivers nonworking. Open Suse has a package management system as stable as an upside down pyramid.

If ubuntu pulls what they have started off they will do what Microsoft did with Windows. Take the desktops first and then edge themselves into the serverspace. I cant believe how stupid Novell and Redhat are on this since there is ample evidence that it works this way.

Re:Who really benefits? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451114)

If anything, they should put out a home distro cheap and capitalize on Vista's shortcomings.

No company in there right mind would put linux on a desktop for less than $80 and propose that it replace home users software. I use the price $80, because RH already offers a desktop version for $80.

I think $80 is pretty cheap for a desktop with support. In fact it might be too cheap.

They currently have a distro called Fedora for home users that do not want to pay for support, but I think the average user, would want a stable version such as Enterprise Desktop.

One thing the other distributions haven't figured out is training. NOVL and LTS rely on LPI courses and I honestly haven't seen it go much farther than that for them.

RedHat has a suite of training classes that provide a lot of information on deploying a system for Enterprise/SMB usage. I think the key here is SMB usage, because this provides another level of business security which SMB need, otherwise they just can't use it.
Currently I can find someone who has a knowledge of computers and an descent skillset on linux (LPI). I can then figure out where they are in their knowledge of linux and where I need them to be and select classes for them to take at RedHat. I can't be assured of that with any other distro.

My point being that I don't think linux on the desktop is the great stepping stone we once thought it was going to be. I think it is probably going to be the other way around.

What business is really going to care that a future employee has gaming experience on an operating system? Besides ones looking for game testers.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451582)

Insightful is deserved. Or own the desktop at home, will drag Linux into the enterprise. Something RedHat and Novell have missed completely. If they continue to do so, many might just drag in Ubuntu... I would and will.

If anything, they should put out a home distro cheap and capitalize on Vista's shortcomings.

Let me know when you get Ubuntu hardware certified and supported with someone like Dell, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. Oh and certified and supported software like Red Hat Software Catalog Browse by Company [redhat.com] . Until then Red Hat is probably going to stay on top.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

hdparm (575302) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450802)

I'd bet that the number of companies that switched to Linux after the persuasion of Ubuntu user is == 0.

Also, can you name a piece of software that went Ubuntu --> Red Hat way?

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

schwaang (667808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451234)

Also, can you name a piece of software that went Ubuntu --> Red Hat way?

upstart [ubuntu.com] ? If you count Fedora as Red Hat.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Informative)

powerspike (729889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450852)

Red Hat has not provided a consumer desktop distribution in over 5 years
Only if you don't count Fedora core, the free version of Redhat that is still worked on.

When those people who are introduced to Ubuntu have an opportunity to influence decisions in the enterprise
You'll find alot of items that are in Fedora core make it into RHEL, Which in some ways makes it into the enterprise, but with the way business works, do you think that end users (comsumers) are really going to be able to have a say in what gets put in / taken out of a enterprize level operating system?

popularity in the space the Red Hat vacated 5 years ago
They never left, They just made two distinct products so people wouldn't have brand confusion.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

Tord (5801) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450962)

They never left, They just made two distinct products so people wouldn't have brand confusion.
But what they did just caused more brand confusion. The very fact that you have to make the above statement on Slashdot is proof of that.

They could have separated the products without abandoning the name Red Hat, like calling it "Red Hat Free Desktop" or something. Totally removing their name from the product gives a very clear signal that they want to distance themselves from the product.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451060)

Yeah. Or they could have just, you know, made the "free" version exactly the same, software-wise, as the "paid" version; with the difference being that the free version doesn't include the printed manuals and the telephone support hotline.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451526)

I'd assumed the paid version of RedHat is intended for servers, though, which makes it a bit more of a project.

Of course, they do have that in the form of CentOS, but it's a bit obnoxious that CentOS has to exist.

Re:Who really benefits? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451522)

Only if you don't count Fedora core, the free version of Redhat that is still worked on.
Which is also officially unsupported. You can, in fact, buy support for Ubuntu Desktop.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450956)

I think that's an excellent point. I'll take it one step more and suggest looking at how long it took Red Hat to reach the point they're in as far as enterprise, then look at how quickly Ubuntu is moving into that same space. Along with that, Ubuntu has the end user version, which, as you've pointed out, pulls in many people who might later be making enterprise decisions.

It's quite possible that in the not to distant future, Red Hat may find they're choking on the dust from Ubuntu. If that happens, that response will certainly sound like "famous last words."

The idea of "Why should we cooperate when we're kicking ass" just seems too egocentric and short sighted to ever sound like it was wise in the long run.

Re:Who really benefits? (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451540)

You seem to be confusing popularity with 'a business that pays our salaries and makes money for our stockholders'. It's a different model: RedHat is in a good position to incorporate new features from ubuntu developers into their Fedora, then their RHEL releases, in a managable and tested way.

This helps avoid exactly the OpenSSL/OpenSSH key craziness that just happened to Debian and Ubuntu, because someone got careless migrating the code and commented out an important piece. And avoiding that craziness is exactly what you pay companies like RedHat for.

For us lazy readers... (2, Interesting)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450502)

I'm sure many of us Slashdotters who can't be bothered to read the article, much less do research, would love to know:

Who is this Wieers fellow?
What exactly did Shuttleworth propose?
What's the point of syncing Enterprise Linux releases?
What is and why is Wieers making this big stink?

Re:For us lazy readers... (5, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450556)

Who is Wieers? [fosdem.org]
  What did Shuttleworth propose? [markshuttleworth.com]
 
Why he would propose it is sort of the point. RTFA.
 
I don't think it is a big stink. In fact it seems a rather well thought out bit of analysis.

Re:For us lazy readers... (5, Informative)

caseih (160668) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450660)

Dag Wieers is known to just about every user of RedHat Enterprise Linux and CentOS, because he and a few other people provide a ton of 3rd part packages that make life more bearable. See:http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/packages.php

He's also one of the people behind rpmforge, which tries to make a unified repo of 3rd party add-on packages. Previously there were a number of incompatible (dependencies and so forth) repositories like atrpms. Dag's work benefits all of us who use RHEL on a regular basis.

I'm assuming that Shuttleworth proposed that every enterprise distro synchronize the release versions of certain core packages like glibc, mysql, gcc, etc, so that it will be easier for vendors to target linux distros with their software releases. In theory it's a good idea, but not everyone has the same idea of what's important and what the right version to release is.

Re:For us lazy readers... (2, Informative)

hdparm (575302) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450848)

In fact, RHEL + rpmforge (or Dag rpms) kicks ass of any other desktop Linux distribution.

Re:For us lazy readers... (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451504)

The funny part is, for this Mandriva/mandrake user, when you put Dag and rpms together like that, it rang a bell. I remember stumbling upon the collection when I was searching for an rpm for something.

Re:For us lazy readers... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451530)

I find it's nice to be able to pull individual repositories. Ubuntu + Medibuntu + WineHQ + (...)

Re:For us lazy readers... (2, Insightful)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451108)

So that's the secret to making Red Hat usable, nice.

Also kindof scary to see how many things I use on a day to day basis that are in the third party repos...

Re:For us lazy readers... (4, Informative)

MSG (12810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451148)

He's also one of the people behind rpmforge, which tries to make a unified repo of 3rd party add-on packages. Previously there were a number of incompatible (dependencies and so forth) repositories like atrpms. Dag's work benefits all of us who use RHEL on a regular basis.

You forgot to mention that the whole reason that there is an rpmforge is that Dag and co. refuse to operate under EPEL / Fedora's rule: Don't introduce packages that are already in the main repository. As a result, Dag's archive and rpmforge will conflict with the base distribution or EPEL on some packages. Once in a while, I'll grab a spec from Dag and rebuild packages for RHEL/CentOS, but as a matter of policy I don't allow rpmforge repositories to be added to any of my systems. His work does make my life easier. Technically. From time to time. However, suggesting that there are no longer incompatible repositories gives him too much credit, I think.

Re:For us lazy readers... (0)

Soko (17987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450676)

Who is this Wieers fellow?

He's a maintainer of a major Fedora repository. Dag's been around for quite a while now.

What exactly did Shuttleworth propose?

That the major free linux distros sync release cycles, so other vendors can target a more homogeneous environemnt.

What's the point of syncing Enterprise Linux releases?

Less difference in the distro underpinnings means less to maintain for third party vendors, making Linux a more attractive dev target.

What is and why is Wieers making this big stink?

What else do assholes do?

Re:For us lazy readers... (4, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450734)

I don't think this level of laziness should be encouraged

Re:For us lazy readers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451210)

No shit.

If you dont know what the story is about and can't be bothered to perform 30 seconds of google-fu, then why the fuck bother looking at the comments and posting a worthless reply like the gp did? All it does is waste everyones time.

Re:For us lazy readers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451440)

Hmm. I suppose it can be seen as laziness, but the fact that he had to ask these questions brings up the interesting point of why weren't these pieces of information linked to or discussed in the summary?

Though you and I may take this information for granted, I don't expect every Slashdotter to know everything about everything. Besides, including this information would only improve on the quality of the summary and its effectiveness in reaching a wider audience who may take interest in the topic after being properly informed on the subject matter. The GP is asking, "Why should I be interested?" I suppose you could just take your reader's interest for granted, but that will only serve to reduce the breadth of the target audience.

this again (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450504)

'is no more than a wish to benefit from a lot of work that Novell and Red Hat are already doing in the Enterprise space.'

odd, it was my understanding that GPL'ed software was supposed to be used, not just by a few. I do understand his concern that Canonical and others should be contributing more useful software to the code base that is available but whining every time some distro uses the code that is available, adds to it and becomes popular is very very un-productive.

Re:this again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450580)

odd, it was my understanding that GPL'ed software was supposed to be used, not just by a few.
No, it's supposed to be free, as in you can do what you want with the code. If Novell (or whoever) wants to distribute new code to the masses on the seventeenth day after the first new moon of the year, that's up to them. Why should they want to follow some other team's release schedule?

Red Hat, Novell, Debian Foundation, and Canonical should not be constraining each other to that extent, or we'll just wind up with a big bureaucratic mess.

Re:this again (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450586)

He's not whining. He's just pointing out that it seems very natural, with a bit of thought, for Shuttleworth to want this and for Red Hat not to feel too much pressure to comply - for very good reasons on both sides.

Re:this again (3, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451370)

It's not just the code, it's the roadmap.

RedHat does work on all levels of the GNU/Linux stack - kernel, compiler, c-library, gui libraries, apps. That means that if RedHat wants a feature (say SELinux) they can coordinate across projects rather than waiting for the right stuff to show up in repositories.

And don't kid yourselves, this is a huge competitive advantage that Ubuntu doesn't have.

Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (5, Interesting)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450512)

Yes. Shuttleworth would benefit from synchronized releases. If there wasn't some advantage for his project, he wouldn't have suggested it. What he's suggesting is that everyone else would benefit too.

Sure, Red Hat puts a lot of effort into hardware support backports. But if Ubuntu, Debian, Novel and Red Hat all standardized on the same kernel releases for their six-month release cycles then hardware vendors would have one platform to target instead of four. That might very well increase vendor cooperation - even to a sufficient extent that Red Hat would get better hardware support than they have now with less investment.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (5, Interesting)

humphrm (18130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450588)

From what I've seen, hardware vendors only target Novell and Red Hat right now, and Ubuntu and Debian are afterthoughts. And frankly the hardware vendors don't do a very good job of targeting those distro's anyway. I'm in a huge enterprise shop and we're always scratching our heads, trying to figure out how to make the latest hardware work in a supported way now when the SW vendors are saying "Yeah, that's available in the kernel now, but it'll be a while before we officially release & support it." We ask the HW vendors about official support from the distro, and they say "Isn't this supposed to be open source? Can't you just build a new kernel that supports this, with these drivers we'll give you?" They don't seem to understand that enterprise shops don't get support from the major distros for custom kernels. Then Sun jumps in every once in a while and says they're going to release their own distro that follows their own (x86) hardware release, just like their SPARC line, but then they fall behind in releasing hardware because it's waiting for the distro... and so it goes. GAH!

We have to figure out how to tame the chaos. Enterprises are shying away from Linux now because of the churn. All the value that is gained by using cheap x86 hardware is lost in the Engineering churn. I think vendors just talking to each other would solve half the problem. I don't know what the rest of the solution is.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450716)

"we're always scratching our heads, trying to figure out how to make the latest hardware work in a supported way now when the SW vendors are saying "Yeah, that's available in the kernel now, but it'll be a while before we officially release & support it.""

This is a kernel architecture deficiency, it shouldn't be necessary to recompile a kernel just to use new hardware, ever.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

beheaderaswp (549877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450836)

Ahem- this is a kernel architecture *choice*- not a deficiency. It is the age old argument between a monolithic kernel and a micro kernel.

You can religiously pick a side and proclaim expertise- but in reality you'll deal with both philosophies in the data center.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (4, Informative)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450896)

No, this is not a monolithic vs micro kernel argument at all, this is about upgrading drivers and what that requires in Linux. The Linux kernel already has the architecture for adding drivers at runtime as modules, just like OS X, just like Windows, etc. The difference is, on Linux you can't install new drivers easily if at all without backporting large amounts of code, like Red Hat apparently does for their customers.

Your only options are to try to compile new driver code against the running kernel headers, which doesn't usually work because whole subsystems have changed or are entirely missing, or you can rip out the entire kernel for a new one, which doesn't happen unless you do it yourself, by compiling mainline from source, something IT shops aren't likely to do.

Look at the example i quoted, they are saying new drivers got added to the newest kernel but because of the way the kernel works, large amounts of developer time are needed to get new drivers working on existing systems.

This is quite obviously a problem, but the kernel devs seem opposed to the idea of a stable module ABI, there is even a file in the source tree which says something like "you think you want a stable module ABI, but you really don't" its like a jedi mind trick. I understand perfectly well the implications of supporting a stable module ABI, but its necessary in some cases.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (4, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451124)

The danger is that if the kernel ABI was stable, then the hardware manufacturers would think they were able to get away with releasing drivers only as binary blobs, without Source Code. This of course is highly undesirable. It also raises the nightmare possibility that repairing a deeply-embedded, totally-overlooked yet potentially fatal bug could cause major breakage. (XP SP2, and Vista UAC, I'm looking at you.)

If you want a stable ABI and binary-only drivers, then fork one of the BSDs. Hell, you can even cage the Source Code up and release the whole kernel binary-only. Recompiling something occasionally is a price I'm quite willing to pay for software freedom.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

iowannaski (766150) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450854)

it shouldn't be necessary to recompile a kernel just to use new hardware, ever.

Be careful with that word "ever." Processors are hardware too, and I think one should reasonably expect a recompile when moving from, say, Itanic to Power6 or G4 to x86 or x86 to ARM.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451084)

True, in that case though you are recompiling the entire system.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451152)

What the hell are you talking about?
Do you know what a kernel is?

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (4, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450822)

We have to figure out how to tame the chaos. Enterprises are shying away from Linux now because of the churn. All the value that is gained by using cheap x86 hardware is lost in the Engineering churn. I think vendors just talking to each other would solve half the problem. I don't know what the rest of the solution is.

Not quite sure of that. A fortune 500 company I know has ceased new orders for Microsoft and investing in a Linux desktop. It is at the tender stage where where if the CIO gets a massive pricing cut the program could be nixed an not unixed.

Microsoft is under sever pressure to get it's pricing down and quality up. They falter much more, knowing Linux will be the next fad want to have skill. And those that know Linux, getting Ubuntu, RedHat and SUSE working together is much easier than a NT to AD migration, plain and simple.

Just push Open Office and FireFox to the desktops first, nice and immediate MS-Office savings and a nice prep for the conversion. And if the MS salesperson says "Linux what?" You say the OS we are using to replace MS-Windows. Gets a pretty hefty discount if you can show you mean business. Your company wins either way.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451394)

I don't think you are contradicting him, because you're talking about initial cost, and he's talking about TCO. Maybe the grass just looks greener over there.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450992)

"From what I've seen, hardware vendors only target Novell and Red Hat right now, and Ubuntu and Debian are afterthoughts."

Which is of course why Dell ships Ubuntu en masse, why Asus (eeePC) ships Xandros (a Debian derivative), and Shuttle is shipping Foresight. As far as consumers are concerned (which is where Linux has the most room to grow), Novell and Redhat don't exist.

Facts are fun.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450606)

Canonical actually has to have something to offer for Red Hat to be interested.

And since the vast majority of their actual paid engineers are working on proprietary projects like Launchpad...

(Don't believe me? Ask a Canonical employee how many engineers are working on Launchpad.)

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450740)

How would RedHat benefit in your opinion?

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

code4fun (739014) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451014)

It's a noble idea, but is it practical? We're talking about companies with different priorities/development schedules. Not to mention the commitments they make to their paying customers for new features and deliverables. For example, what if Red Hat's big customer doesn't want to move to the new kernel? Red Hat can't force their customers to upgrade. Also, Ubuntu already has access to all the open source work that Red Hat produces. Ubuntu would have to spend the development effort integrating it with their system.

Standardized API (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451074)

It would be a very reasonable effort to develop a standardized "driver API" for drivers and whatnot. Linus could easily issue an API that is standard, year by year. EG: 2007 API, 2008 API, 2009 API, etc. It doesn't have to be by calendar year, but it does have to be CONSISTENT.

And makers of hardware could easily write drivers to this API, binary or source, and release these in yum/apt repos, so that any distro could do a quick check for the hardware, and instantly know what repo to go to with a simple lookup.

Once this is done, WHO FREAKIN' CARES what date something is released? The only thing that matters is the driver API. If that's honored, the game is over. I imagine yum/apt repos for drivers published by driver manufacturers that are discovered "automagically" by distros. It not only wouldn't be that hard, it would be trivial if the right effort was put into the right place.

(Sigh). I can dream, can't I?

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451096)

If all the distros standardised on the same kernel, there's a very great danger that hardware manufacturers might turn to releasing binary-only drivers. Then we will all lose out, because we will no longer have absolute control over our own computers.

Maybe the Linux kernel 3.0 will have some cool feature that makes binary-only drivers technically impossible, or maybe we'll see a decompiler soon. Or maybe even, just maybe the existing law which already forbids binary-only drivers will be enforced. But I don't think it's fair to gamble the future on such an eventuality. Right now, skewed kernel releases are about the best defence we've got against manufacturers not releasing driver Source Code.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (1)

srh2o (442608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451480)

Red Hat didn't jump on the United Linux bandwagon when it was formed in 2002. I'm not really sure their position in the Enterprise has changed all that much that they would jump on the Ubuntu United Linux in 2008.

Re:Yea, he wants to benifit - that's the point. (3, Insightful)

jilles (20976) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451560)

The same goes for independent software projects. By far the largest problem across linux distributions is integration testing. Basically quite many things only work properly if you handpick specific versions of components. Introduce a little variation (like package management systems do) and basically you are looking at a unique configuration of packages that has never been tested in that exact configuration before. Feature interaction and other package interdependencies can be really tricky to test against.

The current situation of major distributions hand picking their own versions of packages + introducing distribution specific patches to them only adds to this problem. And then of course independent software developers further add to the problem by only testing on specific configurations of specific distributions. And we all know what a typical developer's workstation looks like. Few projects have the resources to organize broader integration testing.

What Shuttleworth suggests is that merely synchronizing on package versions & release schedule would broaden the scope of integration testing and reduce the amount of mostly non differentiating and needless variation. Effectively it would unify the integration testing work already done across distributions & projects and raise the level of quality across the whole community.

It's hard to see how this can be a bad thing.

A second point that Shuttleworth makes is that independent projects have their own roadmaps for stable releases. Distributions often have to deal with the fact that a nearly ready version of some component is vastly better than the year old stable version. That creates a dilemma: ship the old stable version or let users benefit from loads of useful fixes (that ultimately make the distribution more attractive). Firefox 3 beta 5 in Ubuntu was a good example. Probably a good decision but obviously the combination of OS and browser which at the time were both moving targets cannot have possibly been tested as well as would be desirable for a browser in a major desktop OS.

Wouldn't it be great if Mozilla had known a year in advance that if they'd pushed out Firefox 3 early April 2008, it would have made it into Fedora 9, Ubuntu 8.04, Slackware and Open Solaris release that each ship the exact same version of critical components that Firefox depends on.

Group benefit (4, Interesting)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450550)

Synchronizing the major distro releases helps to distribute testing and integration load among the enterprise supported distros while helping upstream developers by giving them fixed integration deadlines. All of that is good for Linux, and helps to keep distros and upstream vendors doing what they're good at, which enterprise loves. Which begs the question: is Red Hat thinking that growing the enterprise Linux space is harmful to its interests?

Re:Group benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450614)

. Which begs the question: is Red Hat thinking that growing the enterprise Linux space is harmful to its interests?
Um... I'm not sure where you are getting you're bizarre viewpoint, but it sure isn't from this article. For one thing, Dag Wieers is only speaking his own opinion about Shuttleworth's motives. Dag is not affiliated with Red Hat... he's just this guy, you know?

Re:Group benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450646)

Yeah, sure.
http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/
No bias there at all.

Re:Group benefit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450720)

http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]

I disagree - there is benefit for Red Hat (3, Insightful)

vinn (4370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450652)

Right now the landscape for various projects is really a mess. Everyone kind of has their own release schedule and it's different for every project - and for good reason: we're doing this on our own time and therefore why should we care about ship dates?

Well, realistically we do. If projects knew that every May and every November there'd be major distro releases, they'd probably do a good job of freezing their trees in January and July to prepare point releases aimed at being relatively stable.

In turn, there'd be a nice set of releases that Red Hat could pick from and decrease their QA. Otherwise, it's kind of scattershot what the condition of various projects' trees are in.

Re:I disagree - there is benefit for Red Hat (3, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450752)

I don't think projects hurrying to meet a specific deadline really benefits anyone.

Re:I disagree - there is benefit for Red Hat (1)

Tranzistors (1180307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451270)

But it seems lot of them are having deadlines. Kernel every 3 months, GNOME - 6 months, OO.o - 3 months. Not sure about others.
Syncing at least these deadlines could help.

Re:I disagree - there is benefit for Red Hat (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451340)

Currently there is not unnecessary pressure to meet these deadlines though. Do you really want to be THE project keeping everyone else behind?

Re:I disagree - there is benefit for Red Hat (1)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451324)

Synchronizing them can, though- if all your dependencies' timelines meet up you don't have to worry as much about staged upgrades, which increases the stability of your software, reduces development time, and allows you to focus more on how to provide additional functionality than on how to degrade functionality around the absence of a required version of a given package.

Benefit from other people's work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450662)

Linux will be doomed if people start benefitting from others work!

Should we pay attention? (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450678)

Who the h*** is Dag Wieers? Should we pay attention anyway?

Maybe I should also write an article so that I can be quoted as "...Bogaboga supports Coordinated Linux release proposal..."

Re:Should we pay attention? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450746)

The answer to your first question has been answered in replies to that same question above.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=556388&cid=23450502 [slashdot.org]

Should you pay attention, that depends. Why do we listen to anyone? I listen to people for whom I have respect. As a long time CentOS user I do respect Dag Wieers for his quality RPM packaging and repository as well as work on creating rpmforge. So yes, I'll listen to him.

Will I listen to your rant? You are a 6 digit slashdotter but that may not be good enough reason to listen.

Re:Should we pay attention? (3, Funny)

uhlume (597871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450748)

Welcome to the grown-up Internet. You can swear here.

Re:Should we pay attention? (1)

jroysdon (201893) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450838)

Who the h*** is Dag Wieers? Should we pay attention anyway?

Maybe I should also write an article so that I can be quoted as "...Bogaboga supports Coordinated Linux release proposal..."

To quote someone else who posted 3 minutes before you:

Dag Wieers is known to just about every user of RedHat Enterprise Linux and CentOS, because he and a few other people provide a ton of 3rd part packages that make life more bearable. See:http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/packages.php

He's also one of the people behind rpmforge, which tries to make a unified repo of 3rd party add-on packages. Previously there were a number of incompatible (dependencies and so forth) repositories like atrpms. Dag's work benefits all of us who use RHEL on a regular basis...

borg joke (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450702)

"If he can use that same kernel, with the same backports, fixes and regressions tests, Ubuntu LTS does not need to do anything to support the same vendor hardware. Easy, but at the expense of both Novell and Red Hat."

I feel a borg joke coming on....something about a collective maybe?

I'm in agreement with him (4, Insightful)

wrook (134116) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450706)

I don't think he needs to be playing devil's advocate. I think what he's saying makes a lot of sense.

When an enterprise buys new hardware, they want the software to "just work" on it. It would be expensive for them to do the work themselves, so they are happy to pay someone else to do it. This is the value-added service that Red Hat gives. This is what an enterprise pays for.

It would be ludicrous to give your *competitor* this service for free *before* you give it to your customer. Sure, once you do the work, others can benefit -- that's part and parcel of free software. But you are allowed (I'm going to even say *expected*) to charge for your services.

Because Canonical and Red Hat are going after the same market, it is inevitable that there will be some overlap of effort. If Canonical wishes to use the work that Red Hat does, they merely have to wait until Red Hat releases.

But what worries me more here is that Canonical seems to miss the point where *creating a working distribution* is a money making opportunity. They seem to see it as a loss leader and they will charge for "support"; where "support" means hand-holding the user. Perhaps I'm wrong. I really hope I am.

Until companies understand that providing solutions and creating capability is the service where all the money is, we're not going to see the explosive growth in Free software that I'm hoping for. I had hoped that Canonical understood this. I still hope it's true, but I'm less optimistic.

Re:I'm in agreement with him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451198)

Mod parent up.

If Shuttleworth sees an advantage to this he can align his releases to RedHats. Or he could just link his Web site to RedHat and CentOS and close up shop.

One of the benefits to having different distributions is that they do things differently. We've already had an operating system that didn't offer us any choice. I like it because if the distribution isn't doing for me what I would like, then I could go to another. But if everybody is the same then what's the point.

I guess they would have a different wallpaper. If I ever looked at that.

Das Wiener (3, Funny)

Kadoo (822109) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450712)

Das Wiener! Sorry it's late.

Re:Das Wiener (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451454)

I actually read it as "Dog Wiener" for a second.

If OSS is evolution... (3, Interesting)

Statecraftsman (718862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450724)

then what Shuttleworth is suggesting is the idea of seasons. If everyone can get on the same page a couple times a year, the rest of the time they can go do their migration, vacationing, rewrites, refactoring, day-jobs, etc. If it makes sense for mother nature, it might just make sense for our software ecosystem.

Emergent cooperation FTW!

It's Meta Manufacturing - Stupid! (1)

quanta (16565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450764)

Big glob-o-stuff goes out the door on a known schedule.

What could be simpler?

Mark Shuttleworth's response to competition. (5, Interesting)

lazy_nihilist (1220868) | more than 6 years ago | (#23450922)

Here is Mark Shuttleworth's insightful response [markshuttleworth.com] when I asked him, "Why would Red Hat cooperate with Ubuntu, especially now that Ubuntu also has its sights set on the server market. Don't they consider Ubuntu a threat?"

Developers Developers Developers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23450976)

Some operating systems provide a well defined (documented) set of interfaces/APIs/libraries to develop with. Version info included.



Some don't.



The market shows which philosophy is more successful.



Re:Developers Developers Developers (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451230)

Some operating systems provide a well defined (documented) set of interfaces/APIs/libraries to develop with. Version info included.

Some don't.

The market shows which philosophy is more successful.

Yes, the Webserver market [securityspace.com] , the embedded market [linuxdevices.com] and the supercomputer markets [top500.org] do indeed show which OS is superior.

Thanks for the insight, AC! :)

Let Shuttleworth sync Ubuntu with RHEL (5, Interesting)

fadir (522518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23451352)

From my point of view only Ubuntu would benefit from such a synchronized release schedule. Well, I guess then it's best that they change their release cycle to Red Hat's. That's not too difficult to achieve as RH announced its schedules quite early.

So if you want free beer - go and get it yourself!

Good for Linux, users bad for Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23451542)

As all products/industries/software matures you get this behaviour, where the established vendors do not want to help the rest. Shame that Linux no longer wants to help the desktop user and is only interested in server software. Red Hat is really the Linux which enterprises use, making Linux a misnomer, but a lovely cover story for RH. So the large distros would prefer to destroy other Linuxes/distros. Just like IBM maybe using Linux as a temporary tool to destroy others e.g. Microsoft, Sun & HP. If IBM can take Sun out using Linux then drop/kill Linux later and go back with the mainframe e.g. Z/os what will be the result of the endgame. We will be back in the 80's. All of Unix dead with less choice in the market. HP-UX and AIX are already marginalised and dying.

A co-ordinated Linux would help the Linux user, so it is a good thing to stop all this Linux nightmare. Just make it easier for desktop users to use Linux, that is what we want. Co-ordinated kernel is a good thing.

But will the monopolistic behaviour of RH allow this. Interestingly RH is killing Linux in the long term by smoothering others. Because of this behaviour more are looking at Ubuntu and OpenSolaris.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>