headers
Access Systems | 6 Dec 2002 02:09

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8


> Kris wrote:
> > I know that Redhat 8.0 is a drastic departure from the standard Linux
> model,

??? how is RH 8 significantly different than say 7.3 or 7.2 ????

the propaganda I get from Red Hat doesn't make it seem that radical but
more evolutionary...

Bob

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys <at> smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks

_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Jim Wildman | 6 Dec 2002 02:40

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

It is certainly not a drastic departure from my view (my laptop).  All
the commands are still there, all the packages are still there, same
kernel (couple revs newer of course), still boots and runs.

What is so 'drastic'?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wildman, CISSP                                      jim <at> rossberry.com
http://www.rossberry.com

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Access Systems wrote:

> 
> > Kris wrote:
> > > I know that Redhat 8.0 is a drastic departure from the standard Linux
> > model,
> 
> ??? how is RH 8 significantly different than say 7.3 or 7.2 ????
> 
> the propaganda I get from Red Hat doesn't make it seem that radical but
> more evolutionary...
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
>    ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
>     NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys <at> smartnospam.net       
>     NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Pete Barnwell | 6 Dec 2002 03:07
Picon

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

On Friday 06 Dec 2002 1:40 am, Jim Wildman wrote:
> It is certainly not a drastic departure from my view (my laptop).  All
> the commands are still there, all the packages are still there, same
> kernel (couple revs newer of course), still boots and runs.
>
> What is so 'drastic'?

Where's the support for playing mp3 files for starters? Why a compiler that;s 
not approved for buildinga kernel etc? $PATH seems to be incorrectly set for 
root, font sizes / types all wrong, most icons missing off KDE desktop (OK 
you can add them fairly easily, but why?). Non-standard install of Postfix 
(sendmail.postfix ??) - the list of things wrong with it are almost endless. 
Having used RG since the Halloween Release I've almost decided to change over 
to Suse now, depending on how RH 8.1 goes.

I don't mind (and expect) odd things being not how I like them on every new 
release, and some things being broken, but there were simply so many things 
wrong with 8.0 I moved swiftly back to 7.3. I've just loaded my Workstation 
at work with Suse 8.1 and believe me there is no contest, Suse blows RH out 
of the water as a desktop disto. The only thing I like better on RH now is 
up2date...

[snip]

Pete Barnwell

_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Konstantin Riabitsev | 6 Dec 2002 17:33

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 21:07, Pete Barnwell wrote:
> Non-standard install of Postfix (sendmail.postfix ??) 

Actually, this is the alternatives system borrowed from Debian. It's the
same way in 7.3. This way you can switch between sendmail, postfix, and
other MTAs by simply running "alternatives."

E.g. to switch from sendmail to postfix:

alternatives --set mta /usr/sbin/sendmail.postfix

and back:

alternatives --set mta /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail

takes some getting used to, but it's a neat feature. It goes the same
way for printing systems, too (cups/lpd).

The real reason for this is so people can install both packages on one
system, e.g. for testing reasons or to figure something out. Without
"alternatives" it's simply impossible without doing something horrible
such as --nodeps or --force, which would do a lot of damage to the
system.

I am quite happy with rh8 and I know a lot of users who are as well. The
main thing to remember is that nobody is making you use it. :) If you
don't like it, there are plenty of other vendors who would gladly sell
you their distribution.

Regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Chris Spencer | 6 Dec 2002 17:20
Favicon

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 20:07, Pete Barnwell wrote:
<snip>
> > What is so 'drastic'?
> 
> Where's the support for playing mp3 files for starters? Why a compiler that;s 
> not approved for buildinga kernel etc? $PATH seems to be incorrectly set for 
> root, font sizes / types all wrong, most icons missing off KDE desktop (OK 
> you can add them fairly easily, but why?). Non-standard install of Postfix 
> (sendmail.postfix ??) - the list of things wrong with it are almost endless. 
> Having used RG since the Halloween Release I've almost decided to change over 
> to Suse now, depending on how RH 8.1 goes.

Pete,

You seem just lost in the little details.  

First off, go out and install apt-rpm.  Let me recomend this:
http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installapt.html

Then if you want MP3 support get xmms.  Red Hat can't give mp3 support
away as it has licensing restrictions on it.  You would be well advised
to avoid it as well.  

I would recomend OGG for this. (Read about it at http://www.vorbis.com/)

As far as compiling Kernels, it works fine.  That's really all I need to
know and I know it works because I had to recently go and switch to a
new kernel.  (Problems with Broadcom 10/100/1000 drivers in Red Hat's
2.4.18 kernels)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Access Systems | 6 Dec 2002 18:37

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

On 6 Dec 2002, Chris Spencer wrote:

> As far as compiling Kernels, it works fine.  That's really all I need to
> know and I know it works because I had to recently go and switch to a
> new kernel.  (Problems with Broadcom 10/100/1000 drivers in Red Hat's
> 2.4.18 kernels)
> 
> I don't even think it matters if you are using Red Hat, Debian, Suse,
> Free BSD, Open BSD, Slackware, or any of the multitude of FREE OS's out
> there.  

well I have finally gotten RH 7.2 to more or less work the way I want it
to, not sure I have the time/patience to start over.  the one major 
question I have is, will open office (or Kword/abiword) now open a
Wordperfect file????
  WP8 ran great on RH7.1 but with the new kernel it has not worked worth
beans, I even bought the full version of WPoffice suite2000, fantastic,
when it works,  but after 10+ years of using WP I'm beginning to make the
switch to Staroffice/Openoffice but I have a huge number of documents
written in WordPerfect that Star/K/Abi won't open or read.. 

> What is important is getting people to understand that they lose their
> basic human rights when they choose a propriatory closed source OS. 
> That is right.  Closed source, propriatory Operating systems, standards,
> and software violate your basic human rights.  (Life, Liberty, and
> pursuit of hapiness)

well I'm not sure about basic human rights but I sure don't want to have
any mission critical operations dependent on proprietary software (look at
the mess Corel made when they stopped supporting WP in Linux  <at> #$*%# <at> ) the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Chris Spencer | 6 Dec 2002 20:51
Favicon

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

> > What is important is getting people to understand that they lose their
> > basic human rights when they choose a proprietary closed source OS. 
> > That is right.  Closed source, proprietary Operating systems, standards,
> > and software violate your basic human rights.  (Life, Liberty, and
> > pursuit of happiness)
> 
> well I'm not sure about basic human rights but I sure don't want to have
> any mission critical operations dependent on proprietary software (look at
> the mess Corel made when they stopped supporting WP in Linux  <at> #$*%# <at> ) the
> WP was/is the last piece of proprietary software on my computer...

It does nothing less than interfere with your basic human rights.  Life
- Try copying software and giving it to your friends (I consider
everyone to be a friend).  That will get you a prison sentence worse
than murder.

Liberty - The definition is "The condition of being free from
restriction or control".  Need we say more?

Pursuit of happiness - Not only does closed source software interfere
with my pursuit of happiness, it interferes with everyones ability to
interact with each other and exchange information.  It doesn't matter if
it is Microsoft re-writing a standard for their own implementation  of
something (active directory, Java, etc) or having a proprietary format
like gif, mp3, ico, doc, wps, etc.  

Closed source, proprietary software would be written as: We believe that
all people have the right to live inside small cages, be fed bones when
we choose to give them some, and chase their tails.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Dan Kegel | 6 Dec 2002 08:39

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

Pete Barnwell wrote:
> On Friday 06 Dec 2002 1:40 am, Jim Wildman wrote:
> 
>>It is certainly not a drastic departure from my view (my laptop).  All
>>the commands are still there, all the packages are still there, same
>>kernel (couple revs newer of course), still boots and runs.
>>
>>What is so 'drastic'?
>  
> Where's the support for playing mp3 files for starters? 

mp3 is not a free format; I kind of respect their decision.

 > Why a compiler that;s
> not approved for buildinga kernel etc?

It is approved.  Does pretty well, actually.  Have you had trouble?
(Doesn't do too well with binary kernel modules compiled with older
versions of the compiler, but Linux being open source, that's not
usually a problem.)

> $PATH seems to be incorrectly set for root, 

I haven't noticed, and I use root a lot.

> font sizes / types all wrong

I haven't noticed.  On the other hand, I'm absolutely thrilled
they're implementing ft and fontconfig; it's about time we had
antialiasing support throughout.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kris | 6 Dec 2002 03:01

Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

IMHO, Redhat has always been the pioneer in simplifying Linux and attempting
to make it more mainstream. It's current model is a drastic change from
older versions as it's styled to look and act more like Windows, so much so
that I feel that most novice computer users probably couldn't tell the two
apart. Take what you will from that, it's strictly my opinion.

kris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Wildman" <jim <at> rossberry.com>
To: <open-source-now-list <at> redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [OS:N:] redhat 8

> It is certainly not a drastic departure from my view (my laptop).  All
> the commands are still there, all the packages are still there, same
> kernel (couple revs newer of course), still boots and runs.
>
> What is so 'drastic'?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Wildman, CISSP                                      jim <at> rossberry.com
> http://www.rossberry.com
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Access Systems wrote:
>
> >
> > > Kris wrote:
> > > > I know that Redhat 8.0 is a drastic departure from the standard
Linux
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane