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!

Fedora Core 6 Hits 2 Million Installs

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the grats-2-u dept.

Red Hat Software 71

spevack writes "Fedora Core 6 reached 2 million installations on Monday, approximately 4.5 months after its release. This number is based on unique IP addresses that connect back to Fedora's servers for updates, with more detailed discussion on their wiki's statistics page."

cancel ×

71 comments

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

Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway... (4, Funny)

pegr (46683) | more than 7 years ago | (#18249964)

Make that 2,000,004...

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (4, Informative)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250040)

Your machines have already been accounted for, and then some (as it seems to me)FTA:

Accuracy of metrics
We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:
1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.
2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.
The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations suggests that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page.

Anecdotes are Fun! (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250128)

"The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations suggests that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1)"

That's pretty dodgy.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

MSG (12810) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250838)

Your machines have already been accounted for

The quote you included specifically states that his machines are not accounted for.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18252780)

And based on this tidbit, why not just count the number of times an essential update is downloaded (like an update for a file that is installed by default on all versions of Fedora core?)

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250094)

No....make that make that 2,000,003... I loaded it on my computer...didn't like it and put Ubuntu back on there.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254992)

I'm a *long* time Debian (eight years) and Ubuntu (year-and-a-half) user.

I installed FC6 the Saturday before last, tried it, and enjoyed it. Except for two things. First, cinelerra (the reason I installed it; There's no package for Ubuntu, and the build scripts were broken beyond my ability to repair.) crashed whenever I tried to import video. Second, it only came with Firefox 1.5, and FF2(From an upstream tarball) segfaulted every time I ran it. However, I switched back to Ubuntu because I suspected something was wrong with the Fedora init scripts. (I'd been losing about 7GB of data after every rebooted; I'd thought the scripts weren't unmounting my external drive properly, but it turned out my firewire card went at the same time as I'd installed Fedora. Gotta update that bug report...)

I really liked yum, though. It's slightly slower than apt-get, but rolls the features of apt-get and apt-cache into one program, and behaves in a more reliable fashion.

I'm trying to burn CentOS discs now. I'm going to hit the professional workforce in a couple years, and it would be nice to have Red Hat experience.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

pegr (46683) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257698)

I'm at a crossroads at the moment. Tell me, why Ubuntu?

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

Mizled (1000175) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257884)

Ubuntu just simply works for me. Whatever machine I install it on it just works with little setup...not much hassle. I've used Gentoo, Slackware, Redhat/Fedora and Ubuntu. Ubuntu just works better for me. If I were you I would try it...if you don't like..go on to the next *nix OS till you find something that just works for you an feels right.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

faolan_devyn_aodfin (981785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18257964)

Well i've found that out of all the distributions Ubuntu (GNOME / XFCE) and OpenSuSE (KDE) are the the cream of the crop. I've used Fedora and while I believe it does have its place it is really more of a system geared towards those who are willing to put up with some hassles. It is getting better on Fedora, but still it is really only a test ground for Red Hat. Although it is ashame though that no one now officially gives KDE as much official support as GNOME. Would have been nice if SuSE remained that way by the writing was on the wall once they purchased Ximian. But there seems to be some good coming out of it and maybe this will help the two DEs more interoperable.

As for Fedora, many good things have come out of the project, but I still do not think it is a "great" desktop linux distrubution just one that should be developed for the sake of innovation.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18262278)

Tell me, why Ubuntu?
Goofy name. The fad^h^h^htrend is for popular stuff to have a goofy name, i.e. Google, Slashdot, Flickr and so forth.

Re:Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway. (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18260190)

Yeah, -1 here to, I installed it just because I wanted whatever with Linux 2.6.16 or newer and mepis ran 2.6.15 (All I needed was Solaris UFS + OS X HFSX+ support and mount/tar), and because I could I tried to update it resulting in an installation where the OS simply stoped loading at the firewall line. And since I have no intrest whatsoever in fixing broken things and invest my time in shit I don't have it installed longer.

On the flip side (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250100)

"Since all my machines are behind a NAT gateway...Make that 2,000,004..."

My cousin's FC6 isn't perpetually on, and he gets a dynamically assigned IP every time he connects. So we'll drop that down to... gee... I don't even know. I don't know how many times he has received updates.

Counting installs by unique IP's isn't very accurate.

Re:On the flip side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250132)

You should probably RTFA.

How pithy (2, Interesting)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250376)

"You should probably RTFA."

I did. Unlike you, apparently, I really read it. They kind of get a feeling from things and stuff they hear that maybe multiple people behind single IP's outnumber single people behind multiple IP's, but they don't really know and haven't really counted. They've just chosen to believe. Doesn't that sum it up?

If Microsoft made a claim on such a basis they'd be lambasted.

Re:How pithy (1)

spevack (210449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18256314)

I'm the submitter of the original article. I understand where your comment is coming from, but you need to keep in mind that large governmental organizations, for example, are *purposefully* quiet about their technology choices. There is a reason why they choose to sync the updates only once and then deploy them from an internal mirror. The fact that these big groups take the time to at least let us know that they are using Fedora is a good thing, not a bad one. We're making the best effort that we can to be honest and up-front about the numbers that we have, and also the places where there is some fudge factor. Isn't it a *good thing* that we provide some context, rather than just saying "x million" with no backup? Would you prefer less transparency? There are lots of areas in which Fedora can be criticized. Being transparent about usage statistics -- I don't understand why that's one of them, quite honestly.

True enough. (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18264600)

"Isn't it a *good thing* that we provide some context, rather than just saying "x million" with no backup?"

Actually I would agree. It's a good thing. Disclosure is ALWAYS a good thing. But I do say that the statistics and conclusions seem highly suspect to me as a result. Regardless, I was mostly responding to the RTFA comment. I always try to RTFA.

Re:On the flip side (1)

d!rtyboy (969507) | more than 7 years ago | (#18252360)

Your dynamically assigned number is different than the IP used when you connect with the internet. So, no, they won't count him again when he updates.

Re:On the flip side (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18259890)

Surely they are counting one particular update, since there is no need for a machine to download the same update more than once (well ok, there is a couple of reasons, like reinstalling Linux, but that doesn't happen very often. We aren't talking Windows here).

Since my laptop has used 3 distinct IP's... (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250392)

Make that 2,000,004...

Make that 2,000,002...

Hey, this game is fun! Everbody can join in!

Re:Since my laptop has used 3 distinct IP's... (2, Informative)

mmcgrath (1072410) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250636)

Amusing at best, if you RTA then you'd know that we understand what you're saying, we've heard it before. We also know that there are companies out there (and governments) that have many thousands of installs that don't get counted at all because they all have private mirrors. The fact is Fedora is the only distro out there who's publically giving out numbers AND explaining exactly how we get them. How many installs does Ubuntu have? And where did they get that number from?

Re:Since my laptop has used 3 distinct IP's... (1)

bfields (66644) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251262)

If you RTA then you'd know that we understand what you're saying, we've heard it before.

Sure. But the reason you're hearing it over and over isn't that people aren't listening, it's that there isn't a satisfactory response: "The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations suggests that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1)" isn't very convincing. (It's understandable--the problem here seems to be difficult to solve--but it's still a real problem.)

We also know that there are companies out there (and governments) that have many thousands of installs that don't get counted at all because they all have private mirrors.

Of course. Do you have back-of-the-envelope estimates of the number of such private mirrors? On the other side, any estimates of the number, say, of Fedora wifi users, and the average number of IP's they might occasionally perform updates from?

It's easy to come up with ways the numbers could be off by a factor of two or more either way.

The fact is Fedora is the only distro out there who's publically giving out numbers AND explaining exactly how we get them. How many installs does Ubuntu have? And where did they get that number from?

So the bar is pretty low, OK....

Hey, I like Fedora. I'd like to know that it was popular. That's why I wish we had numbers that meant something more.

Re:Since my laptop has used 3 distinct IP's... (1)

J.Y.Kelly (828209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18259832)

Hey, I like Fedora. I'd like to know that it was popular. That's why I wish we had numbers that meant something more.

Well if you can wait until Fedora 7 then this will include Smolt [fedoraproject.org] which is a hardware profiler which collects not only information about how many systems are running fedora, but also what hardware they are using. This should hopefully give a better picture of the usage of Fedora and may also help with pressuring harware manufacturers for better linux support.

Of course sending your details to Smolt is stictly optional so reported numbers are guaranteed to be an underestimate, but hopefully most users will participate.

Re:Since my laptop has used 3 distinct IP's... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18251500)

I did a small survey here in the office and only 1 person out of 12 even uses Linux (me), and it ain't Fedora baby.

2 million unique IP's reporting to run Fedora really isn't even close to what Microsoft could claim. I'm sure that if a reasonable metric existed to measure user base Ubuntu and others would adopt it. Following the business theory that a bad metric is worse in most cases than none at all.

Other distros?... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250034)

I would really like to see "total" stats, at least from other major distros...who knows what this data could change in mindsets of many people (that is, if they would be big enough...).

I'm also curious about geographical distribution...

Re:Other distros?... (1)

sgholt (973993) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251136)

How about all the FC3,FC4 and FC5 machines still running out there? I know there are still some. I had a FC2 box up untill a few months ago...Fedora Core has a release cycle of 6 months which further skews the stats.
Fedora Core is one of the best distros IMO...

Including embedded? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254936)

Th embedded space (cell phones etc) is a growing area and by now I would expect that some individual embedded "distros" like those from http://www.mvista.com/ [mvista.com] have a lot more installs (counting every mvista-based cell phone etc as an "installation").

vs Ubuntu (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250050)

I'm just curious how that number would stack up to ubuntu which claims to be the most popular distro because of the number of hits it receives on distrowatch.com

Re:vs Ubuntu (1)

nick58b (536112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251802)

Mark Shuttleworth said "there are probably at least 8 million [Ubuntu] users" in an interview here [redherring.com] .

Re:vs Ubuntu vs FC6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253342)

Remember they are just counting Fedora Core 6 if people are still running older FC's they are not counted.

Re:vs Ubuntu (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258310)

Ubuntu has over 4 million users. FC6 only has 2 million but that is only counting 1 version of Fedora Core, who knows if the 4 million Ubuntu users are *all versions* or just the latest version?

Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (1, Informative)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250074)

Us Fedora users are still here. :-D
LEGION AARRRRRGHHHH

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (2)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250316)

I hear there are still a couple of Marxists too.

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (1)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250686)

Could someone mod parent up? I've been noticing WAY too many things being modded troll that shouldn't be lately.

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18254570)

Could someone mod parent down? I've been noticing WAY too many things not being modded that should be troll lately.

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (2, Interesting)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18258334)

You know, if linux ever wants to become more popular, linux distros (and users) need to stop fighting amongst themselves. Who cares if you like Ubuntu better than Fedora? We need to stick together, even if we are "apart" distro-wise. Why must people attack others Operating System of choice? To make yourself feel better about your own OS choice? Quite sad really...

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18260060)

People must attack other people's convictions because otherwise we'd still be living in mud huts, mmkay?

So, when I say things like "Shuttleworth's pandering to hardware manufacturers who only provide binary drivers is a bad thing for FOSS in general and Linux in special because it removes their motivation to provide specs to their hardware instead of badly-written blobs of proprietary crapola and his insistence that his distro is the best thing since sliced bread and a sure-fire replacement for Windows smacks of technical incompetence and generalized hubris and makes the community look bad and furthermore Ubuntu does not integrate with Active Directory worth a damn.", you should not take that as an attack on your (or his) nads, popularity or brains, or even as an attack on Ubuntu devs, Ubuntu the distro or Linux in general, but rather as the start to a discussion as to why it is or isn't so.

Grow up a bit - Sturgeon's law is real. and it's up to us to separate the shiny bits from the brownish foul-smelling ones.

Re:Hey all you trendy Ubuntu-ites! (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18260198)

You got a point there. I stand corrected.

Sure, but (0, Redundant)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250096)

Does it run Linux?

Hah (1)

matr0x_x (919985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250130)

I bet half of these installations are people like me, that installed, uninstalled it... and then reinstalled it later.

Re:Hah (1)

delta_avi_delta (813412) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250248)

Er, that would still be one unique IP - it counts connections to the update server, not iso downloads.

Re:Hah (2, Funny)

SevenHands (984677) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250382)

Some of us are still on DialUp you insensitive clod!

Re:Hah (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253716)

Still, there's a lot of people who installed it, decided we liked it, and never used it again. It only says how many people installed it, not how many people are actively using it. I'm sure there's quite a few people who heard all this stuff about how good fedora is, that they went and installed it. But that doesn't really mean that they liked it.

Oddball (2, Funny)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250184)

I only ever seem to like the odd-numbered FC versions. Not sure why...

Re:Oddball (3, Funny)

rishistar (662278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251242)

You're confusing them with Star Trek movies?

Re:Oddball (1)

creepynut (933825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255580)

Well lets hope they don't get to 10, realize what an abysmal failure they are when an even number sucks and decide to make a "Fedora -5: Prequil Edition"

Re:Oddball (1)

Scootesti (879866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18277576)

KAAAAAAHN!!!!!

Re:Oddball (1)

noldrin (635339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255076)

2 and 4 were bad, but 6 was really good.

Schadenfreude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18250204)

I would be interested in knowing the number of uninstalls.

well (1)

socerhed (908637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250302)

anyone know what ubuntu is at?

Re:well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253596)

I've heard that Mark Shuttleworth claims it's like 8 million, but I don't know of any statistics page for it. This is just hearsay, so posting AC.

In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

glindsey (73730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250390)

Question: Is it wise or useful to upgrade earlier Fedora Core installations to FC6? Or is it more trouble than it's worth? I've got a server running FC4 at home, and a few dev machines here at work running FC4 and FC5, and want to know if I should bother.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250674)

I haven't been very involved with the Fedora world for a few years now, but back when I used Fedora it was possible to upgrade a live machine from one version to another, but it was recommended against. I believe they recommended that you reinstall, or use the 'upgrade' option on the DVD/CD. I don't really have much of a problem doing a live upgrade (though I used apt4rpm, not yum... I hated yum, so slow, and would always crap out on any even slightly complex dependencies... at least back in the days of FC1/2/3).

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254504)

I've done a number of upgrades from various Red Hat and Fedora versions to later ones. In general, upgrades from the CD went more smoothly than those where I attempted to use yum. There was also one memorable case back in the RHL days, when I manually upgraded a live system using just rpm on the command-line. It was hairy, but at least the system was only down for the length of a reboot.

I have seen it recommended to only jump one version at a time, which would mean upgrading a Fedora 4 system first to Fedora 5, then to Fedora 6.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (2, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250882)

Upgrading FC4 to FC5 fixed some things for my desktop machine. Mostly from getting the newer firefox release. CUPS still can't configure a shared Windows printer, you need to use system-config-printer. They also dropped smbfs from FC5 and forgot to mention it in the release notes -- kind of a huge problem for me, since cifs won't mount samba shares. Given those problems I've been reluctant to upgrade to FC6. I may try kubuntu since I prefer KDE.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 7 years ago | (#18253934)

They also dropped smbfs from FC5 and forgot to mention it in the release notes -- kind of a huge problem for me, since cifs won't mount samba shares.
What are you talking about? CIFS mounts Samba shares just fine. As a matter of fact, CIFS is the protocol Samba uses.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254862)

smbfs worked in FC4, cifs doesn't in FC5. Shares didn't change. I had to convert them to NFS to mount them on FC5.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

junkgui (69602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18256374)

cifs... Users cannot seem to mount drives (even if you explicitly allow them to)... and it seems to have problems with directories with a lot of files in the (>1000) which is ironic considering they switched to cifs to allow the protocol to handle large files. All in all it does work... just with some caveats.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18252426)

You will find different responses from people on this. The choice is not that simple, it depends what you use. Some people say that FC5 worked great and don't like FC6.
In my case FC5 would crash so often I took it off and ignored Fedora until FC6 came along.
FC6 works better than FC4 on my PC. With FC4 I would switch back and forth with SuSE depending on what I needed to do. I haven't used anything else than FC6 since I have it installed.
I also installed it on my son's computer as well as that of my cute neigboor's computer.
My wife likes it so much she wants me to switch her SuSE 10 to Fedora Core 6.

I only noticed two issues so far that ticked me off. The keyboard gnome part was buggy but if you take the respin DVD that is gone. If you only need the US keyboard you won't even see that. The other issue is a serious one, RPM. RPM may crash. The good news is that there is a work around. You delete the __db files and run a rpmdb --rebuild as root and it fixes it.

My PC is an AMD64 with a 32 bits Fedora Core 6 install. I will eventually move to 64 bits but am waiting for better support of plugins.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18253592)

I did a yum upgrade from FC5 to FC6 on Saturday. Everything appears to work just fine. I must mention, however, that I am a *nix nub and the system may be borked in some subtle way. My experience, though, is that everything I have tried works just fine. Whether it is worthwhile or not is something I cannot answer.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255692)

Contrary to the claims of just about every distro in existence to be able to perform massive in-place upgrades, the authors of the Linux From Scratch book issue a very stern warning (which I agree with) about such.

Their rule of thumb is, if you upgrade *any* element of the core toolchain, (gcc, binutils, and glibc mainly) the only way to be 1000% sure that everything works is to backup your data and reinstall the lot. You might be able to get away with in-place upgrades of minor point releases of those three packages; but to some of us, it's just not worth the risk. Hosed installs of any of those three packages can introduce extremely subtle, but eventually systemic problems which generally don't become obvious until they've completely trashed your system. This sort of thing is one of the main reasons why I have such a problem with binary packages, personally...there are some core packages that just *aren't meant* to be installed in-place as bricks, but need to be compiled and linked into the system in an organic way...they depend on other things in the system, other things depend on them, and if you have the wrong versions it can wreak all kinds of havoc.

Dpkg and rpm might really help a lot of people...I'm not arguing with that. If you need or want Linux and you don't have the knowledge to compile your own, they can give you a working system quickly.

However, those of us who can cook for ourselves also know that fast food is never as healthy or tasty as something you prepare yourself.

Re:In-place upgrades recommended? (2, Informative)

hughk (248126) | more than 7 years ago | (#18256290)

The upgrades can work ok especially off CD but you can also accumulate a lot of cruft, old libraries and discontinued packages. I just tend to backup /etc (there are always some config files you want to resurrect) and blow away everything except /home and /usr/local (non-rpm stuff for me) and even the latter usually wants a rebuild to use the latest libraries.

Sorry! (1)

jkiol (1050424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250428)

Sorry that's my fault, I just can't get this install to work right :(

Re:Sorry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18255870)

Somebody mod parent up:)))

Sorry... (1)

magnus_1986 (841154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18250694)

Hate to rain on your parade but that was just me trying to get those huge updates over my spotty 56k connection that kept dropping...

The Danger (2, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18251246)

In stating these numbers is it puts a "market size" on Linux. This sets a dangerous precedent.

How can that be? Well you see, any corporation or trust-fund baby having the slightest relationship to operating systems buys market research. They know with a little confidence how much, how many and how often computer-things sell. This is the stuff that CEO's and their wanna-be brethren eat for breakfast lunch and dinner.

Once Linux distros are stuck into the "how much, how many, how often" blender, there will be a mixed-bag of consequences. For example:

1. What are the top 3 distro's. Winners and Losers (or is it loosers?) will be chosen. The depth and variety of distros will suffer.

2. How much money is the Linux market making?
3. How fast is the market for Linux products growing?

2+3 = dot-com bubble and all the baggage that went with it.

Remain out of reach of the CEO-class and there's no target, no winners, no losers, just an amorphous thing called Linux that's diverse, active and everywhere.

Re:The Danger (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254758)

...except that these people would be interested in things like RHEE, rather than Fedora Core.... Take a wild guess at the total profits made off of all the copies of the FC editions that are out there

Re:That's my point (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18255826)

That's my point.

Every idiot that can shake money out of a vulture capitalist or his rich uncle will see dollar signs.

This time though, they will make a mockery out of Free Software and abuse the GPL kind of like Tivo has and other craziness yet to be discovered.

who cares.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18254124)

let's skip to the part where I care about fedora... still using RPM.. RPM sucks giant granite elephant testicles through a very small straw.

Meh - let's not go overboard here (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18254664)

Don't forget those that download portions at work, the rest at home, install, then -oops - something breaks - then re-download, re-install - over and over again.

I for one, through various IPs,probably personally account for at least 40 installs.

And no, I don't currently have it running due to bugs.
Check for New 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>