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!

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Released

simoniker posted about 11 years ago | from the how-enterprising dept.

Red Hat Software 330

OrenWolf writes "CNET is running an article on the release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux. Major changes include more IBM Mainframe support, support for AMD64 (x86_64) processors (aka Opteron, Athlon64 and AthlonFX), changes to support options, integration of Stronghold Apache, and much more."

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

FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287724)

Another story that nobody cares about.

but the real question is..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287729)

..... who gives a shit?!

Re:but the real question is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287817)

As a matter of fact, I just did. Hmmm. Funny you ask.

Re:but the real question is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287898)

You gave a shit to someone?

Re:but the real question is..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7288006)

Well, tell us. The guy who started this thread wants to know who's handing them out. I think he rubs himself down with them... not mine to wonder why.

Important question (0, Funny)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about 11 years ago | (#7287730)

Does it come with a SCO license?

Re:Important question (3, Funny)

rjamestaylor (117847) | about 11 years ago | (#7287867)

Does it come with a SCO license?
No, but it does have a copy of a SCO Invoice overlayed with Alan Cox's raised middle finger...

;^)

Re:Important question (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 11 years ago | (#7287874)

It out to, considering what they're charging.

Re:Important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287891)

hahahaha, the 28439th SCO joke at slashdot! hahaha!!

Re:Important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287932)

actually, I think it was only the 699.99th

Benchmarks? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287735)

How about some Sparc/Solaris vs Opteron/Solaris vs Opteron/RH3.0 benchmarks for server, database etc.

Re:Benchmarks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287839)

Hey that fefe guy just did some FreeBSD 4.9 benchmarks at the bottom of this [bulk.fefe.de] page. FreeBSD 4.9 is pretty much the same as FreeBSD 5. Wonder what all those FreeBSD zealots think of that?

GPL compliance... (3, Interesting)

chill (34294) | about 11 years ago | (#7287737)

Since a discussion about RH's licenses with these seem to pop up every time they are mentioned on /., I thought I'd point out that source RPMs for RHEL 3 are located on Red Hat's FTP server. .iso images are not available.

No one said they had to make it EASY...

Re:GPL compliance... (2)

heapacreep (701458) | about 11 years ago | (#7287763)

They do not even give you .iso s to install with? So it is shiny new annoyingrpm linux. Give me a dual boot OS X and yellow dog linux system any day of the week. Actually if you give me a system at all, that works too...

Re:GPL compliance... (3, Insightful)

nzkoz (139612) | about 11 years ago | (#7287783)

They'll give you the CDs if you buy the software. Judging by your response I'm guessing you're not their target market?

How many MIPs do you have on your zSeries?

Re:GPL compliance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287941)

myself, about 4 :-(

Re:GPL compliance... (0, Troll)

iggymanz (596061) | about 11 years ago | (#7287912)

so you LEGALLY & with GPL's blessing rip the CD's from work or your friends or someone uploads them to alt.binaries.whatever.....I have RedHat AS 2.1 that way; want a copy?

Re:GPL compliance... (2, Informative)

chill (34294) | about 11 years ago | (#7287950)

so you LEGALLY & with GPL's blessing rip the CD's from work or your friends or someone uploads them to alt.binaries.whatever...

Yup.

I obtained 2.1WS for home from my copies as work. When work updates to 3, then I'll make copies for use at home. I don't need paid support at home. It is nice to have at the office, though.

Re:GPL compliance... (2, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | about 11 years ago | (#7288037)

Yeah, this is all perfectly legal. Installing any updates however you get from subscribing to the updates service, violates your RHN contract.

Essentially Redhat is selling the support, and a guarantee to support a RHEL product for 5 years after its release.

Re:GPL compliance... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 11 years ago | (#7288070)

at least for 2.1, was able to get the source RPM's for *necessary* updates at home (especially to get kernel & libraries to level I needed), but yeah, wouldn't even try to do *ALL* the updates this way. Hope that in 3 the source rpms will be available. My style of administration is to never blindly load all the updates anyway, even when I was a subscriber at home. Interesting that for certain certified configurations on the job, couldn't just blindly update either.

Re:GPL compliance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287953)

... I thought I'd point out that source RPMs for RHEL 3 are located on Red Hat's FTP server. .iso images are not available.
No one said they had to make it EASY...

Red Hat have no obligation to put the SRPMs on their FTP site. Under the terms of the GPL, only people receiving the binaries must be given access to the source code.

Be thankful the source is available. Can't say the same for SuSE Enterprise Linux.

CheapBytes (2, Informative)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | about 11 years ago | (#7287963)

I just zapped an e-mail to the folks at CheapBytes [cheapbytes.com] to see if they plan to come out with a knock off version. They have been publishing ISOs under "Pink Tie Linux" which just remove the official Red Hat logo, etc. They don't have to make it easy but someone else may be able to make it cheap.

I can guarantee you that you won't get support but it will be interesting to see how Red Hat goes about publishing updates since I somehow don't see some of their larger customers downloading and compiling source code and then rdisting the non-RPM, binary updates to their Red Hat systems. I'm guessing Red Hat won't really care since the people who would go to the trouble of figuring out how to make this work probably wouldn't cough up $1,499 or whatever it is anyway. There's always Mandrake, Debian, Slack, Red Hat's own Fedora, etc. for us cheap bastards.

Re:CheapBytes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7288002)

I bet Red Hat could put the whole thing on their web site on the front page with complete detailed instructions on how to install it, and most big co's would still pay the full price.

I admin some big red hat systems and trust me the folks who specified it could care less if it is open source, open season, or open sesame. They just know linux will save them money, beyond that they pay willingly to keep things up and running.

Re:GPL compliance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287978)

yeah, but the GPL doesn't permit companies to make any profit on GPL'd software so they still aren't in compliance. They have to claim it's all services.

Re:GPL compliance... (1)

etymxris (121288) | about 11 years ago | (#7287998)

People's complaints with RHAT's GPL compliance doesn't have anything to do with providing the source. It has to do with the bundling of RHEL with support contracts. The support contract restricts how many servers you can install RHEL on at once. By bundling RHEL with a support contract that restricts redistribution, RHEL itself violates the GPL.

Re:GPL compliance... (1, Insightful)

b17bmbr (608864) | about 11 years ago | (#7288071)

By bundling RHEL with a support contract that restricts redistribution, RHEL itself violates the GPL.

if RHEL is 100% GPL, then it would be, but, if RH is selling non-GPL stuff in there as well, then no it isn't. this would be configf tool that write the /etc/... files, or it could be monitoring software, or even there freakin graphics. i might be wrong here, but part of the deal is their red carpet service, for each server. thus, you are limited to how many servers can be updated. it's not just making the source available, it's the method of content delivery as well.

Heard their conf call at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287740)

About a week ago I got to listen in on a conference call where some folks from Red Hat engineering and marketing, along with their IBM counterparts, introduced the v 3 releases and sang its praises. Looked pretty good on paper... (ok, virtual paper, an Acrobat presentation). Full disclosure - I work for Big Blue, and I'm glad they support Linux like they do.

And oh yeah, first post!

Re:Heard their conf call at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287844)

1. You failed first post. 2. Why the heck would anyone run Linux in a VM when they can run CMS?

Re:Heard their conf call at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287976)

2. Why the heck would anyone run Linux in a VM when they can run CMS?

You tell me buddy, because thats what they're doing. Oh wait, no don't tell me because you don't know a thing about operating systems.

thr0d post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287745)

supporting 2R13 in south jersey

Re:thr0d post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287831)

Wrong. Not even fifth post you loser. South Jersey sucks my dick.

Shiny (1)

heapacreep (701458) | about 11 years ago | (#7287746)

So basically the story pretty much says it all...all it is "shiny" red hat, you can probably pay for this too which is great for I.T. managers, but best of all, it is shiny new linux.

Threading (3, Funny)

herrvinny (698679) | about 11 years ago | (#7287750)

"The scalability of the threading has gone from being able to support 1,200 to 32,000 threads. The impact on Java is just amazing," said Brian Stevens, vice president of operating system development at Red Hat. "That was probably the most significant engineering effort and the most profound impact on customers."

Excellent. Multiple concurrent downloads of lots and lots of pictures, if you know what I mean....

Re:Threading (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 11 years ago | (#7287951)

You think it's excellent. I think it's disgusting that Java wants 1,200 to 32,000 threads...

Re:Threading (1)

ultrabot (200914) | about 11 years ago | (#7288065)

Excellent. Multiple concurrent downloads of lots and lots of pictures, if you know what I mean....

Actually, the fastest way to distribute static content does not use threads that much, if at all. It's a simple select loop. See Twisted [twistedmatrix.com] .

Or were you talking about RHEL WS and *downloading* the pr0n, instead of serving it? :-)

Redhat is good for business (5, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | about 11 years ago | (#7287752)

I don't mean to sound like some astroturfer, but RedHat has definitely brought Linux to the fore of server operating systems.

With the rapid decline of AIX and Solaris, Win2K and RedHat Linux are making steady gains in the server market.

What's more, with Linux you don't need to have a server farm like NT requires, so in the long run you save your company money by choosing to go with RedHat.

Re:Redhat is good for business (1)

sloanster (213766) | about 11 years ago | (#7288043)

er, windoze server market share has been pretty flat for 3 years and ms is not happy about that - linux is gaining share though.

yet there still is no word for desktop dominance (1)

nomad63 (686331) | about 11 years ago | (#7287762)

Yes it is hard to beat M$ because of their already installed user base etc. etc. but I really would like to see some heavy hitters to release ditributions targetted at the desktop.

Enterprise users of linux servers has a good linux administrator base to perform the tweaks this new version is bringing in right out of the box.

I am waiting for the day to see the windoooze on desktop killer linux distro to come out of Redhat :)

Why do you need that? (2, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | about 11 years ago | (#7287791)

Linux is and has always been a server OS. Why? Because it is patterned around UNIX which is designed as a scaled down version of Multics which is a server OS.

You can train the OS all you like with fancy window managers and scalable fonts and all the rest of the eye candy that desktop users want, but at its heart the OS is still yearning to be driven by the commandline. That's why most GUI programs are usually thin wrappers around sophisticated commandline applications.

This isn't to say that Linux couldn't be ready to overtake Windows on the desktop one day. Take a look at where Linux is today. It is the fastest growing server operating system out there. Windows couldn't hope to beat it there.

Re:Why do you need that? (2)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 11 years ago | (#7287974)

It overtook Windows on my own desktop machines in 1997. As a science (biotech) student, I find there is nothing I can do on Windows that cannot be done equally well (or better) on Linux. It's a matter of flexibility. Instead of being told how to do my work by Microsoft (or whoever), I get to choose.

That's why I have an unused XP cdrom on my desk acting as a coaster. More trouble than it's worth to attempt to get a refund from MS, but that doesn't mean I have to use it.

All the eye-candy anybody could want is here, but so is the command-line when I want it. Best of both worlds. Plus I don't have to worry about coping with downtime resulting from whatever the latest virus may happen to be.

Re:Why do you need that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287984)

You can train the OS all you like with fancy window managers and scalable fonts and all the rest of the eye candy that desktop users want, but at its heart the OS is still yearning to be driven by the commandline.

Cough [apple.com] .

Huh? (1)

twitter (104583) | about 11 years ago | (#7288009)

Server OS? What a crock. First, what the hell is a "server" and why can't my desktop PC be one? Second, what does this have to do with Red Hat or their shiny new distro with 64 bit support?

You can train the OS all you like with fancy window managers and scalable fonts and all the rest of the eye candy that desktop users want, but at its heart the OS is still yearning to be driven by the commandline.

Duh, any reasonable computer will have a command line for certian chores because thats the best way to do them. Unreasonable software has no CLI or a very poor one and these task just don't get done. Anyone who can figure out Microsoft's ever changing forest of tabs can figure out how to manipulate a few text files in the /etc directory. Software that lacks a decent CLI is just feature poor and hard to maintain. Most of them are 3 year disposables.

This isn't to say that Linux couldn't be ready to overtake Windows on the desktop one day.

I'm not sure why free software has not supplanted Windoze yet. It's better designed, easier to use, more rugged and more flexible. Every modern window manager has virtual desktops, but not Microsoft. SSH -X make RDP, PCAnywhere and all that look like the garbage it is. Email, web browsing on Microsoft platrorms is miserable and will break your silly PC. Free software handles those tasks masterfully and that's just the tip of the free software networking gold mine. I can indeed spare a few clock cycles to run as an sftp "server", or a web "server". Modest hardware, such as a 450MHz K6/2 with 128MB easily hosts myself and my wife at the same time. She surfs, I burn CDs with a graphical client but never have buffer underflows. Free software is lean, clean and does what I want it to on my desktop right now. I did not have to do much training to work any of the 5 or 6 GUIs I'm now familiar with. Click and drool works even better in the free software world than M$ can dream their bloated mess will work.

Red Hat's got your 64bit software! That's outstanding. I'd just love to get my hands on a nice little shuttle and drop this on it. The $800 cost is more than justified in a business environment. It can easily replace 8 windoze bozes by converting them to X terminals with something nice like Debian. Each of those nice little PCs could log onto that box as a "server" for document sharing, email and group colaboration that free software is famous for. I'm sure it would have no problem at all running 8 sessions of Star Office, fetchmail and other nice applications for users. $800 is a little steep for a personal box, but that price will come down and the 64 bit builds will come out in cheaper or free distros. That will be nice, not that I need it yet. I might reconsider that when firewire video gets cheap enough for me and PC video lives up to the hype that M$ has put out since 1995 with it's "multi media" bullshit. Hats off to Red Hat for putting this out.

Bill Gates said that a personal computer would never need more than 640K of RAM. Maybe he knows what a "server" is. He's real smart, I'm told.

Yeah, yeah, I know about turning off services to a computer that's exposed to an untrusted network. I read the Microsoft hotmail report [theregister.co.uk] , but already knew most of that. That's why my 486 packet filter has no GUI and has a limited set of software installed. Does this flexiblity somehow keep the software I use for my 486 from being a good desktop machine?

I'm so confused. Here I am, having run Linux and free software exclusively for the last two years on my desktops. I have not figured out what people mean when they say I'm running a server OS yet. Can you help me out here?

Re:Huh? (1)

denks (717389) | about 11 years ago | (#7288052)

I'm not sure why free software has not supplanted Windoze yet. Because its NOT easier to use. Average mum/dad users do not want to learn the command line any more than most 1337 geeks want to learn how to repair their cars engines. They want something simple where they just log in at most and everything works. At the moment GNU/Linux is nowhere near that stage. Buy a piece of hardware, it depends on what distro you run as to how you install it. Hey, maybe you even have to install a kernel module or possibly even recompile the kernel. Ask for help and receive a RTFM reply. Until things are brought up to the stage where things Just Work(tm) it will never catch up. Now...OS X is another matter :-)

Re:Why do you need that? (1)

kfg (145172) | about 11 years ago | (#7288030)

CLI oriented does not inherently mean server. Even in such "purely" graphical enviroments as classic Mac and Be the real power of the OS was accessed through a Unixy commnad line.

Now, or course, OSX is a GUI wrapper over over BSD.

Unix is a multiuser OS. The internet is a multiuser enviroment. "Server" OSes are just spiffy for the modern home user.

NT itself is a "server" OS, descended directly from VMS with a GUI wrapper, only in the case of Windows it is done in such way as to somewhat cripple both the GUI and the CLI. Bundling user space apps into the kernel of a server OS is one of the main causes of Windows insecurity, and the main reason Ballmer is talking about a 20 year timespan to fix it.

My 70 year old mom who has only used Macs at home and the odd bit of Windows in internet cafes while traveling is perfectly happy with Mandrake/KDE.

Of course, I configured the system for her, as a workstation/internet client. It can be done, just so long as you actually understand desktop use. The primary problem with Linux on the desktop is that most default installs (even Mandrake's. I haven't tried their "Discovery" distro yet though) are compromises between home desktop configuration and "server" configuration, not being ideally suited for either.

Just like Windows.

Unix isn't the problem. Unix programers are.

KFG

Re:Why do you need that? (1)

antiMStroll (664213) | about 11 years ago | (#7288091)

Do you also feel that Windows, with its origins on the desktop, will never be a server OS? Or does its NT heritage mean it will never be a desktop OS? Or is the assertion just spurious?

Re:yet there still is no word for desktop dominanc (1)

DeathPenguin (449875) | about 11 years ago | (#7287797)

>>Yes it is hard to beat M$ because of their already installed user base etc. etc. but I really would like to see some heavy hitters to release ditributions targetted at the desktop.

Mandrake and Lindows immediately come to mind...

Re:yet there still is no word for desktop dominanc (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 11 years ago | (#7287996)

It doesn't have to be "targetted" at the desktop do do the job, though. Slackware makes a fantastic desktop distro once you know a bit about Linux. Though I probably wouldn't inflict Slack on a newbie with no experience of Linux.

There is a difference between a great desktop distro and one that is simply easy to install. Mandrake et al fall in to the latter category, IMHO.

Re:yet there still is no word for desktop dominanc (2)

denks (717389) | about 11 years ago | (#7287820)

Apple has already released a Windoze killer, its just that nobody in the Linux community will admit to this :/ In its current form there are no Linux distros anywhere near good enough for the home desktop market. Why dont we turn our attention to beating the enemy first and then sort out our differences later. Red Hat have a great server OS, Apple have one for the desktop. Combine the 2 and it is impossible to beat. (Well, possibly by a farm of G5's ;) ) Just my $0.95 worth.

For x86 as well? (1)

Wee (17189) | about 11 years ago | (#7287925)

Red Hat have a great server OS, Apple have one for the desktop. Combine the 2 and it is impossible to beat.

I would really love to see the machine that can dual boot that combination.

If Apple would release a version of OS X for the x86(-64) architecture, I'd convert my desktop machines in a hot second -- as I'm sure many (multiple) tens of thousands of others would. But that will never happen, so I'm just going to use the one OS I already have on the wide range of hardware I already have purchased and amortizing.

It's a pity, really. OS X is nice. But not that nice. Red Hat, SuSE, et al. do just fine as a Unixish desktop. Red Hat in particular has a lot of commercial support, and indeed is giving Sun/SGI a run for their money in some areas. Commodity hardware and a (cheap) OS make a fairly attractive combination. It's easy to standardize hardware/vendors for nearly everything your CAD/VLSI/etc worksations to the secretaries' WinXP desktops. That can't happen so well if you have some Apples, some Intel, some SPARC, etc.

-B

Re:For x86 as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287991)

I would really love to see the machine that can dual boot that combination.

Why? I run both at the same time. Virtual PC is a good thing.

If Apple would release a version of OS X for the x86(-64) architecture, I'd convert my desktop machines in a hot second

You'd have to. Because two hot seconds later, Apple would be out of business.

OS X is nice. But not that nice. Red Hat, SuSE, et al. do just fine as a Unixish desktop.

That's kind of the point, you see. Mac OS X is not a "Unixish desktop." It's only goal is to be the easiest-to-use operating system in the world. The fact that it also happens to be the most powerful is just icing.

Re:yet there still is no word for desktop dominanc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287942)

Congratulations, genius. Now just the minor detail that OSX doesn't run on 99% of desktops means it isn't even a contender. Do you expect apple will magically attain > 50% of the desktop quite soon, do you?

Re:yet there still is no word for desktop dominanc (1)

IANAAC (692242) | about 11 years ago | (#7287971)

Apple has already released a Windoze killer...

Pity it doesn't run on anything but Apple hardware.

Red Hat's movin' on up (5, Interesting)

Qweezle (681365) | about 11 years ago | (#7287780)

Let me tell you; I own stock in Red Hat, I've researched their business strategies fervently...and these people know what they are doing with open source software. Red Hat posted a profit of 240,000 for the last quarter, the first profit EVER for a company mainly based on open-source software. Red Hat is moving forward, and fast, and there is no denying that soon, very soon, they could destroy Microsoft's server market share, and possibly kill poor ol' Sun Micrososystems(who I also own stock in). Red Hat, by the way, is a steal at its current 12.81 price, but I got in at 10.70. ;-)

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287801)

Red Hat stockholder Qweezle talks up his own stock:
Red Hat, by the way, is a steal at its current 12.81 price, but I got in at 10.70.
Consider yourself reported the Securities and Exchange Commission [sec.gov] .

Have a nice day.

Thats not illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287858)

Shareholders and company officers can promote their stock at will.

WRONG! Yahoo based on open source (1)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | about 11 years ago | (#7287843)

Yahoo runs on open source (FeeBSD, perl, php, apache) and their 'product' is of course open source - you can view the source of any html file and you may set your robot to crawling their site.

They may not produce open source but they use it throughout to produce their revenues and support it (they employ some FreeBSD team members).

Re:WRONG! Yahoo based on open source (1)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | about 11 years ago | (#7288019)

The html you get from yahoo is trivial compared to the code working behind the scenes which dynamicly generates it. And just because you can see it doesn't mean it is open source. All their html is copyrighted, and no permission to redistribute and modify is given.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287868)

I don't take stockmarket advice from people who own shares in Sun.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287869)

I own stock

Dude, that is so 1999.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (2, Interesting)

Brian Stretch (5304) | about 11 years ago | (#7287870)

I've researched their business strategies fervently...and these people know what they are doing with open source software.

Except for their limiting x86-64 support to their enterprise version and not including it in the-version-that-follows-9 (codenamed Severn), which has me (a paid-up RHN subscriber) looking at SuSE 9. Yeah, because Linux geeks just aren't going to be interested in playing with shiny new toys like the Athlon 64 or multiprocessor Opteron machines...

(No, I don't have one. Yet. Been busy with classes. Trying to hold out for a semi-affordable Athlon 64 notebook. This one [voodoopc.com] is exceptionally nice, but not quite within my budget, sigh.)

Then again, that still puts RH well ahead of Microsoft. Hey Bill, thanks for the encouragement to switch over to Linux full-time!

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (1)

Nothinman (22765) | about 11 years ago | (#7287913)

x86-64 on workstations is a lot more work because you have to have 32-bit compatibility because you're more likely to want to run an app that can't be recompiled for the 64-bit target. On the server side they just say "we don't support 32-bit binaries" and don't worry about it.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287876)

Yeah, right, ok Nostradamus.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287901)

Do you masterbate fervently too?

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287970)

ha ha I got in at 14 and out at 150! Anybody remember the "friends and family" shares??? Open source made me a rich man (sorta, I put the money back into the market like a moron and lost most of it :-( ).

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (2, Funny)

thedugal (704139) | about 11 years ago | (#7287989)

Well, about 3 threads up threads up there is a nice conversation about how you can download the enterprise rpms for free (compliance with GPL). Whats interesting is that the thread typically devolves into a discussion on how they are "legally" (sorry guys it aint legal) pirate the RHE cds. So, with friends like these, who needs enemies.

If Redhat stays afloat it will be because geeks talk their managers into using linux for the price and then over the course of years, Redhat slowly starts attaching more and larger price tags to its products and services. I'd still be quite wary of investing a large chunk of change in RH. I sure as hell wouldn't put my kid's college fund in there.

Re:Red Hat's movin' on up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287999)

Red Hat posted a profit of 240,000 for the last quarter, the first profit EVER for a company mainly based on open-source software.

Cough [corporate-ir.net] .

Samba 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287784)

This include Samba 3.0, any one know?

Re:Samba 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287792)

Most likely, it seems to be standard with most Linux server distros these days...

Gee... (2, Insightful)

buddha42 (539539) | about 11 years ago | (#7287798)

I didn't realize how cheap WS is. I was all set to give up on my RH after my trusty 7.3 w/up2date was end-of-lifed. But for $179 to get a distro with that much spit and polish.. I might just get it for my home gateway/webserver/etc box.

Re:Gee... (0, Flamebait)

ghe2001 (664026) | about 11 years ago | (#7288038)

Take a second look. There's no webserver in WS.

3 different versions (5, Informative)

Dreadlord (671979) | about 11 years ago | (#7287800)

which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux
Actually, there are three versions of Red Hat Enterprise, WS [redhat.com] , ES [redhat.com] , and AS [redhat.com] , WS is supposed to be a desktop OS, while AS is the most advanced version, WS price starts at 179$, and AS price at 1499$ for the Intel x86 platform.

Re:3 different versions (1)

Dysan2k (126022) | about 11 years ago | (#7287835)

I run 4 AS 2.1 systems right now. Worth the cash, and no problems with them outside of user-error. They run strong, and update very easily. Up2date works about as well as one could want minus the software availability. Yes, you can get a whole lot more via Apt-Get than up2date, but at least I know the up2date stuff isn't gonna bork up my box.

Granted, if you HAVE had up2date bork the system, what'd you install that did it? I'd be curious to see where folks have had problems with that.

Re:3 different versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287885)

> Granted, if you HAVE had up2date bork the system, what'd you install that did it?

You mean, aside from the one up2date update that broke up2date?

It does not appear to be free? (1)

Osrin (599427) | about 11 years ago | (#7287810)

... and no free support either.

Re:It does not appear to be free? (2, Informative)

tempest303 (259600) | about 11 years ago | (#7287851)

True, it's not free (as in beer), but it is Free (as in speech), and that is what is important. As for support, that depends on which product you're buying - the AS version always comes with support, the ES and WS versions have support as "optional", depending on whether you want to pay more or not. Sounds like a good deal to me...

Re:It does not appear to be free? (0, Flamebait)

m_evanchik (398143) | about 11 years ago | (#7287877)

If it's free as in speech, where can I download an ISO? Are updates only available to paying customers? Which parts of it are proprietary?

Re:It does not appear to be free? (2, Informative)

chill (34294) | about 11 years ago | (#7287933)

"Free as in speech" doesn't mean "download an iso".

The source RPMs are available on ftp.redhat.com for you to peruse, modify and compile at will.

Nothing says they have to hand it to you on a silver platter.

Re:It does not appear to be free? (2, Informative)

sprag (38460) | about 11 years ago | (#7287943)

The source RPMS are available from their servers (though I can't check right now...server is too busy), so you can build it yourself. They're charging for the packaging (which is the .iso as well since it all has to work together), the support, and for any non-free software, but not the free software, which is the right thing to do.

Go RedHat!

Re:It does not appear to be free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287972)

All the source RPMs are on their ftp site. Check out the stuff in ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3

Re:It does not appear to be free? (1)

atrader42 (687933) | about 11 years ago | (#7287977)

I'd reccomend poking around on Suprnova [suprnova.org] or other bittorrent sites. These sorts of things will tend to show up pretty soon. That's legal, but you don't get support from Redhat. I'm not certain whether this one gives you up2date like Redhat 9 does, but all updates are available, whether Redhat puts them in your face or not.

Re:It does not appear to be free? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | about 11 years ago | (#7287930)

But it IS free as in beer! You just can't get the free beer direct from Redhat. Give it a couple of hours and there will multiple free beer distribution points for your downloading pleasure.

Talk about old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287848)

Picasso was released in what, early 1996?

No software death here (5, Interesting)

693746 (693746) | about 11 years ago | (#7287857)

It's interesting that while Microsoft is praising their new products at the expense of their old ones [washingtonpost.com] , Red Hat is still pimping their old Enterprise Linux, version 2.1, even after they've rolled out a shiny new offering. From the RHEL 2.1 page [redhat.com] , which is linked directly off of the RHEL 3 [redhat.com] page:
While version 3 provides many compelling new features, some customers will wish to continue to use version 2.1.
And then they go on to detail three reasons [redhat.com] why you would want to stick with the old version!

A company offering an honest assessment of their new product offerings? What's going on? Is it April already?

Re:No software death here (1)

Soko (17987) | about 11 years ago | (#7287952)

It doesn't suprise me. Here's a snippet from the x86 installation page linked from the "notes" page, about how installation can be run from a VNC client (which is pretty cool in of itself, but I digress):

The following examples show the how the boot-time option is specified for standard and non-standard ports:

linux vnc vncconnect=pigdog.example.com

linux vnc vncconnect=pigdog.example.com:27910


A server named "pigdog". Pigdog! "Sorry boss, be back in the meeting in 5 minutes - I have to go check my cron script on PIGDOG." Ha - what's next, a Windows 2003 server named "FUCKUP"?

If that isn't a underhanded swipe at stuffy PHBs, I'll eat my RedHat. IME those who actually 'get' OSS tend to be clear headed, intelligent, respect the intelligence of others and have a really wicked sense of humour.

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Soko

Re:No software death here (1)

56ker (566853) | about 11 years ago | (#7288057)

What does pigdog mean?

Re:No software death here (2, Insightful)

iabervon (1971) | about 11 years ago | (#7288069)

Why not sell 2.1 instead of 3? If you buy 2.1, there's a chance you'll upgrade to 3 later. Furthermore, 2.1 has been tested and used more (since it's been around longer). If the primary source of purchases is new systems or conversions from other OSes, there's no reason to try to get people to leave the older version, unless it's hard to support.

obligatory bashing (0)

grosa (648390) | about 11 years ago | (#7287859)

so now there are how many linux distributions that run on the new 64 bit machines out of the box?

Suse, Redhat, others?

and how many other OSs that also run out of the box without you having to use said box as a house after purchasing it?

nice (1)

sewagemaster (466124) | about 11 years ago | (#7287903)

finally we've reached version 3 in the enterprise series. in a few years we should be expecting redhat enterprise 3 for workgroups, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Lornhorne.. Way to go! sooner or later we'll be able to block others from forwarding our emails too in upcoming office releases!

You forgot Red Hat Millenium Edition. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287924)

Or maybe, a secret version of Red Hat Bob?

Stronghold Apache rocks! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287918)

It's a game, right?

Red Hat Linux sucks ass (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7287954)

Use SuSE! [slashdot.org]

Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? (4, Interesting)

leereyno (32197) | about 11 years ago | (#7287993)

Ok so Redhat is charging $149 for their spiffy new version of Linux. Fine. Unlike some I'm not under the influence of mind-altering ideologies. But that doesn't mean that I want to pay $149 for EVERY system I install it on. I'm THE Linux support for ASU's Fulton school of engineering, and we've got almost two hundred systems (that I know of) running one version of Linux or another. I'm the person who has to keep these systems running, and that means it's my job to keep them up to date and make sure they're running a version of Linux that we can expect to see vendor supplied patches and security fixes for. Lets just say I'm not happy about the fact that after the end of the year I'll have to create my own update RPM's whenever a remote vulnerability is found in some package or another. And now I find that even updates to RH 9 are going to end in April of 2004. What does this mean for the school? Either we move over to the new enterprise version, or we start looking real hard at Mandrake, SuSe, etc.

Which brings me back to my original question. Does anyone know if there are non-GPL'd components included in the new Enterprise version and if so what they are? I'm not going to go around installing proprietary for $$$$ software on people's system illegally, and I'm not going to be able to ask them to pony up $149 per copy when the copy of Redhat the system is already running didn't cost them a dime. So if anyone knows anything, even rumors, I'd really like to know. If I can surgically remove the proprietary components from the system I will as long as they are not critical to its operation. Of course if Redhat is simply charging $149 for the service of being able to download their distro and aren't looking to prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you'd like (sans support obviously), then I'll be more than happy to pay the money to get those ISO images. I've never contacted them for support yet, so why should I need to start?

Lee

Re:Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? (1)

etymxris (121288) | about 11 years ago | (#7288020)

The problem is not with non-GPL components, it's the fact that they will not sell you RHEL without a support contract. The support contract says, among other things, that you will not install the software on more than one machine. Total violation of the GPL. This has been brought up before and people have said that it is just the terms of the support contract that will be cancelled if the software is installed on more than one machine. However, this is not in the language of the agreement.

Re:Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7288044)

Well, there's Fedora. In a way, that's the real Red Hat Linux product under a new name. It's still a free download. It's not out of beta yet, but it's getting close. I'd be surprised if there weren't security updates provided for that, since they're saying that packages in Fedora are going to work their way into later Red Hat Enterprise Linux products.

Re:Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? (5, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | about 11 years ago | (#7288080)


Of course if Redhat is simply charging $149 for the service of being able to download their distro and aren't looking to prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you'd like (sans support obviously), then I'll be more than happy to pay the money to get those ISO images

This is the question I had. The sales guy on the phone said this is exactly what they're doing. It's still open source software, so you can install it on as many machines as you want, but you can't buy one support contract and install the updates on 100 machines. They still have to provide the source for the updates of course. So you could DL each source update RPM and compile it yourself.

I'd encourage you to call them though. For 100 machines they may have a better option for you (they also have some kind of satelite service where you can sort of create your own distribution and updates).

Hope It's better than 2.1 (1)

OzBeserk (654927) | about 11 years ago | (#7288003)

Cause we've been fighting to get it stable on RH "certified" hardware for nearly a year. Everyone say "shoot the partner". Now say it over & over again. Don't get me started on "Platinum support".

Does anyone else just really hate Red Crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7288016)

When I hear Linux people talking about it I start to feel ill. Talk about taking a perfectly good linux kernel and fucking it up.

I just ignore it.

$792 for AMD64 support... (2, Interesting)

dameron (307970) | about 11 years ago | (#7288076)

Ouch!

And that's for their workstation configuration...

$179 for the x86 version.

-dameron

Heavy premiums for AMD64 support (2, Interesting)

Alea (122080) | about 11 years ago | (#7288086)

The prices on the AMD64 versions are nutty. I understand they have to recoup development costs for the new architecture and that they only expect rich businesses to use it on expensive servers, but I'm testing Opteron for research purposes at a university. There's no way we can afford that in the long haul.

Anyone know if AMD64 support is expected for Fedora? Or what cheaper AMD64 distributions are around? Do they work? The actual details on AMD64 support on distributions' sites are very sketchy.

Snatching their kernel (1)

ultrabot (200914) | about 11 years ago | (#7288090)

Anyone considering just taking their kick-ass kernel and installing it on a free Linux variant? It's GPL so it would be 100% legal, anyway... or would you need to take some other stuff like their glibc also?

Mr. Debian, are you listening? This might be a good way to accelerate the ISV verification process... they will verify their projects with RHEL, so if you have the same kernel, same glibc etc., you could quite easily persuade them to verify their product on *your* distro also.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?