[lpi-discuss] Red Hat: A tale of two identities (plus my predictions of the Linux market to come) -- WAS: RFC8

ross e. brunson ross at brunson.org
Thu Mar 10 19:45:43 EST 2005


On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 06:37 -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 05:02 -0800, ross e. brunson wrote:
> > Hardly, my impressions are from being in constant contact with my
> > attendees and our customers.
> 
> Who are fully of assumptions from the IT media.  I consider Jason Brooks
> one of the few "half-way knowledgeable" Linux people at Ziff-Davis and
> even he doesn't have a clue of what Fedora is.

Ok, so if it's so darned hard to understand, is it the fault of the
people who find it confusing?  Don't give Jason a hard time, at least
he's an advocate of OSS, and even if he doesn't have the extreme clarity
of the situation you do, he's the one with the job at the magazine.  Why
don't you phone him up and set him straight on Fedora?

> The obviousness of the truth of what Fedora Core is becomes readily
> apparent to those around the project.  

And not many else.  My experience is that if something is hard to
explain, it's hard to understand as well.  As people who make our
livings off of explaining technical rats-nests to normal people we can
unravel things, but to expect mere mortals to do the same?

> Same people, same release
> strategy -- heck -- the Red Hat developers still call it "Rawhide"
> instead of the new name for test packages, "Development."
> 
> > Right, other than that License Agreement thing, nothing has changed...
> 
> Yep, the trademark change.

Oh right, which was so obvious that I didn't mention it.  You're still
ducking the license agreement discussion, I would still be using RH
products if they hadn't instituted that change.

> Red Hat had already announced they weren't supporting releases more than
> a year several years before Fedora.  Now Red Hat _never_ made good on
> that statement -- they kept supporting most revisions 3-4 years (with
> the associated waste of resources)!
> 
> But now they have the "Legacy" tagging, I think that has gotten much
> more efficient.  They are only supporting the last revision of each
> series as Legacy -- e..g, Red Hat Linux 7.3 (matches RHEL2.1 updates),
> Fedora Core 1 (matches RHEL3 updates), etc...
> 
> > And for anyone watching.
> 
> Red Hat had hoped the community would follow the same, strict guidelines
> on any "Fedora Extras" packages like Red Hat does itself on "Fedora
> Core" (and "Red Hat Linux" before it).  18 months later, not much
> happened other than the University of Hawaii doing the same things it
> did before.
> 
> Now Red Hat is being more pro-active and having a formal submission
> process whereby they, and the Fedora Project volunteers, will provide
> more assistance.  This ain't going to happen overnight, but Red Hat is
> learning how it needs to directly support and foster 3rd party packages
> into a single repository.
> 
> As far as any "other complaints" I've seen on Fedora Core 2+ -- those
> have been 100% kernel 2.6 and other details that have also affected
> Mandrake Linux 10+, SuSE Linux 9.1+ and I think people don't bother to
> stop and realize what the root problems are (e.g., disk geometry
> incompatibility with NT above 33.8GB or 137GB).

Hey, I've never complained about RH's technical side, other than wishing
they had a more organized set of interfaces for their management tools,
that is.  

My objections stem mostly from them making it nearly impossible to train
people on their products and for their certifications without a
significant outlay of money for product licenses.

Ross

> 
> 




More information about the lpi-discuss mailing list