I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
_________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years
......
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
Why don't you just use Redhat then? From what I understand, Fedora is a public testing platform... Redhat is the stable version.
- - s r b - - /mnt/this!
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 13:10, srb wrote:
Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years
......
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
Why don't you just use Redhat then? From what I understand, Fedora is a public testing platform... Redhat is the stable version.
- s r b - -
/mnt/this!
Because he has a point. Granted this is provided free and is supposed to be cutting edge, but these were two known deficiencies. I have been bitten by the dual boot bug. With help from many here and elsewhere, thanks Sean, I will get it back working, but we shouldn't have had to deal with that with a "release" version. Are we to treat all versions of Fedora as release candidates and not true released product? I have been working with RH since 99. I run RHAS on my production, but have been testing Fedora on the workstation side. I use Fedora at home. I liked Core 1. It was fairly solid, a few minor bugs, but stable. Core 2 hosed my XP partition and I have had a few other niggling things. I work through them, but as he stated, this is the release, not test version. The dual boot issue and a motherboard issue are major issues that should have been show stoppers. As stated, this can cause a black eye to the distribution and to Red Hat by inference. While I greatly anticipated the Core 2 release for the 2.6 kernel, I would have bided my time if it had been announced that there were a couple of issues and the release was pushed off. I am hoping that real testing takes place with Core 3 and that it is not released with major issues still hanging, just to release it. I will stand by Core 2 and will work through the issues. I just hope that this haphazard style of release does not become the norm.
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 17:28, Edward Croft wrote:
Core 1. It was fairly solid, a few minor bugs, but stable. Core 2 hosed my XP partition and I have had a few other niggling things. I work
--- let's be more precise - it didn't hose your winXP partition. It changed assumptions that Windows XP made about the geometry of your hard drive. Fool it again, and you're back in business.
Craig
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 15:37, Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 17:28, Edward Croft wrote:
Core 1. It was fairly solid, a few minor bugs, but stable. Core 2 hosed my XP partition and I have had a few other niggling things. I work
let's be more precise - it didn't hose your winXP partition. It changed assumptions that Windows XP made about the geometry of your hard drive. Fool it again, and you're back in business.
Craig
Working on it. I just wish I had the time to play with it more.
srb wrote:
Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years
......
Why don't you just use Redhat then? From what I understand, Fedora is a public testing platform... Redhat is the stable version.
While the OP was over the top in his reaction to two bugs, which I thought had both been fixed, there is something in his complaint.
I find this word "stable" generally heralds some silly remark. Surely Fedora-2 is meant to work as is? And if it doesn't then there is a bug, which should be fixed as soon as possible. You shouldn't excuse bugs by saying "Fedora is not stable".
In my view, Fedora-(n+1) should work at least as well as Fedora-n on all systems, and if an "improvement" is known not to work on some machines it should be eschewed.
I've been disappointed to find Xorg does not work as well as XFree86 on my Sony Picturebook (C1VFK) with ATI Rage Mobility video board. It's impossible to get the same 1024x480x16bpp which I had with FC-1, and in fact with all RedHat versions for several years. I've posted an Xorg bug report, and seen an FC-2 bug report raising exactly the same point, but I've seen no evidence either report has been read. (There have been many other postings about ATI Rage under FC-2.)
Now this is using the "ati" driver intended explicitly for ATI cards, so there is something wrong in my view if it does not work with the same cards that the previous version worked with.
Why don't you just use Redhat then? From what I understand, Fedora is a public testing platform... Redhat is the stable version.
While the OP was over the top in his reaction to two bugs, which I thought had both been fixed, there is something in his complaint.
I find this word "stable" generally heralds some silly remark. Surely Fedora-2 is meant to work as is? And if it doesn't then there is a bug, which should be fixed as soon as possible. You shouldn't excuse bugs by saying "Fedora is not stable".
I guess "stable" was not the most accurate word to use. :-) I am just familiar with using a lot of other distros that have certain "idiosyncracies" if you will, from version to version. Sometimes a "fix" or "improvement" breaks something else. It is unfortunate. But when you consider real FREE Linux distros, this means that many people are contributing a lot of their time and resources for no monetary reward and therefore deserve respect and patience if nothing else.
FWIW, last night I upgraded my kernel to the 8k stack 2.6.6 version in order to install the NVidia 3D driver (which did not "work" out of the box so to speak). Thanks to the generosity and dedication of people who created a work-around for NVidia users, I was able to follow instructions and get it work (thank you).
I've found that most of the time you can get things to work, but if you're getting it for free, don't be surprised (or put off) if you need to put some effort in. But on the bright side, you will definitely learn more.
Peace.
- - s r b - - /mnt/this! fedora core 2, kernel 2.6.6, amd 2500+, asus a7n8x-x, ocz ddr400-512, msi fx5200-128
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 20:09, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I find this word "stable" generally heralds some silly remark. Surely Fedora-2 is meant to work as is? And if it doesn't then there is a bug, which should be fixed as soon as possible. You shouldn't excuse bugs by saying "Fedora is not stable".
In my view, Fedora-(n+1) should work at least as well as Fedora-n on all systems, and if an "improvement" is known not to work on some machines it should be eschewed.
---- let me see now... new kernel version new X server a stated goal for fedora "It is also a proving ground for new technology"
and you expect it to work at least as well as the previous version on all systems or it should be eschewed.
Let me suggest that those who are frustrated with their perception of the quality of the FC-2 release familiarize themselves with the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar' by Eric Raymond.
I will quote a little snippet
"Here, I think, is the core difference underlying the cathedral-builder and bazaar styles. In the cathedral-builder view of programming, bugs and development problems are tricky, insidious, deep phenomena. It takes months of scrutiny by a dedicated few to develop confidence that you've winkled them all out. Thus the long release intervals, and the inevitable disappointment when long-awaited releases are not perfect.
In the bazaar view, on the other hand, you assume that bugs are generally shallow phenomena -- or, at least, that they turn shallow pretty quick when exposed to a thousand eager co-developers pounding on every single new release. Accordingly you release often in order to get more corrections, and as a beneficial side effect you have less to lose if an occasional botch gets out the door."
---
thus, releasing imperfect software is part and parcel of the open source world. My understanding is that Windows XP was released with 14,000 known bugs.
If you want to read Eric Raymond's treatise... http://www.redhat.com/knowledgebase/otherwhitepapers/whitepaper_cathedral.html
There are some who curse the darkness and some who light candles...
Craig
Craig White wrote:
and if an "improvement" is known not to work on some machines it should be eschewed.
let me see now... new kernel version new X server a stated goal for fedora "It is also a proving ground for new technology"
and you expect it to work at least as well as the previous version on all systems or it should be eschewed.
Let me suggest that those who are frustrated with their perception of the quality of the FC-2 release familiarize themselves with the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar' by Eric Raymond.
A bug is a bug, and should be acknowledged as such, instead of trying to excuse it with all this philosophical stuff.
If someone thinks they have improved the X driver for ATI (which is what I was talking about) they should at least have tested it on existing ATI machines.
As far as I can see, there is only one guy working on this driver, and he does not seem to read bug-reports on it.
Everyone makes mistakes; it's what they do about it that matters.
As far as I can see, Fedora moved over to Xorg from XFree86 because of some quibble about licences. I'm not sure if Xorg has the resources to maintain the X servers, let alone improve them.
Incidentally, I think one should apply exactly the same criteria to software whether it is free or not. It is seriously damaging to Linux if you reply to complaints by saying, "But it's free" with the implied addendum, "What do you expect?".
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 11:30, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Craig White wrote:
and if an "improvement" is known not to work on some machines it should be eschewed.
let me see now... new kernel version new X server a stated goal for fedora "It is also a proving ground for new technology"
and you expect it to work at least as well as the previous version on all systems or it should be eschewed.
Let me suggest that those who are frustrated with their perception of the quality of the FC-2 release familiarize themselves with the 'Cathedral and the Bazaar' by Eric Raymond.
A bug is a bug, and should be acknowledged as such, instead of trying to excuse it with all this philosophical stuff.
If someone thinks they have improved the X driver for ATI (which is what I was talking about) they should at least have tested it on existing ATI machines.
As far as I can see, there is only one guy working on this driver, and he does not seem to read bug-reports on it.
Everyone makes mistakes; it's what they do about it that matters.
As far as I can see, Fedora moved over to Xorg from XFree86 because of some quibble about licences. I'm not sure if Xorg has the resources to maintain the X servers, let alone improve them.
Incidentally, I think one should apply exactly the same criteria to software whether it is free or not. It is seriously damaging to Linux if you reply to complaints by saying, "But it's free" with the implied addendum, "What do you expect?".
---- I never said anything whatsoever about free. The fact remains...all reasonably sophisticated software - even in final form is released with known limitations (bugs as it were). You have the source code if you want to try to fix some of these things yourself or just hang in there, they will get worked out.
Yes Xorg has become the focus of X server for a large portion of Linux because of the license issues. What you have characterized as a quibble about licenses has caused the largesse of the open source packagers to migrate. Have you reported your problems there? Did you bugzilla your problems with Xorg/FC-2 to fedora's bugzilla?
I can tell you from my own experience with Fedora extra's wxPythonGTK2 that I had a problem. Removed the rpm's and downloaded the source from python.org and rebuilt it. Posted on bugilla.fedora.us my findings. Within a day, I had a test rpm that solved the issue. Within 3 days, the fixed rpm was downloaded and installed via apt-get. I don't get this type of service from proprietary vendors. When I had a problem with openldap, I was able to discuss it with the authors.
No one that I can tell is denying the existence of bugs and I think everyone is acknowledging that they exist. Do you believe that Xorg hasn't done a considerable amount of testing on ati drivers?
Daring to repeat myself, it's up to each and everyone to decide for themselves whether they are content to curse the darkness or light a candle.
Craig
<posted & mailed>
Craig White wrote:
Yes Xorg has become the focus of X server for a large portion of Linux because of the license issues. What you have characterized as a quibble about licenses has caused the largesse of the open source packagers to migrate. Have you reported your problems there? Did you bugzilla your problems with Xorg/FC-2 to fedora's bugzilla?
I already said I had submitted a bug report. =================================================== Bug 718 - Cannot run at 16bpp with 1024x480 (as with XFree86)
Bug#: 718 Product: xorg Version: 6.7.0 Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2
Resolution: Assigned To: xorg-bugzilla-noise@freedesktop.org Reported By: tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
Component: Driver/ATI Rage128
URL:
Summary: Cannot run at 16bpp with 1024x480 (as with XFree86)
Opened: 2004-06-03 20:44
Description:
Sony C1VFK Picturebook (notebook) under Fedora-2 Video board: ATI Rage Mobility P/M (Mach 128) This ran at 1024x480 with 16bpp under Fedora-1 (XFree86) but it does not appear possible to attain this now. It runs OK at 1024x480 with 8bpp; but when run with 16bpp one gets a large black oval which shrinks to leave a blank white or cream screen. There seem to be no errors reported in Xorg.0.log . One can escape to text mode (with Ctrl-Alt-F1).
Several people have reported this failure, and no-one seems to have found a solution. ===================================================
There is a similar bug report in the Fedora-2 bugzilla.
No one that I can tell is denying the existence of bugs and I think everyone is acknowledging that they exist. Do you believe that Xorg hasn't done a considerable amount of testing on ati drivers?
Sadly, I see no evidence that there was much testing. If you look at the xorx mailing list you will see that there are as many complaints about ATI Radeon as about ATI Rage. (The driver is intended to cover both cards.)
As far as I can see, the driver does not work properly (ie as it worked under XFree86) with any ATI Rage card. So I find it difficult to believe it was tested with this card.
I did in fact play with the source code, trying the previous ATI driver, but unfortunately there have been changes in the library code called on.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
You have to do what you think is right. But you're not showing a very deep understanding of the situation. To start with, Fedora has a very remote (if any) relationship to any RedHat _product_. FEDORA IS **NOT** A MISSION CRITICAL PRODUCTION READY PRODUCT. Why that is so hard for people to understand is beyond me. Buy a RedHat product, don't vent on a community project which apparently has nothing to do with you or your needs.
Fedora has an appropriate release policy that meets the needs of its target audience. The dual boot issue barely hit the radar during the testing phase and the Asus mobo issue didn't affect 99.99% of people.
It probably is time for RedHat to spell out their policy in single syllable block letters at the top of the Fedora website and force a click-through policy window during the install.
Regards, Sean
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
You have to do what you think is right. But you're not showing a very deep understanding of the situation.
Actually, I think it's *you* who's not showing a very deep understanding of the situation.
To start with, Fedora has a very remote (if any) relationship to any RedHat _product_. FEDORA IS **NOT** A MISSION CRITICAL PRODUCTION READY PRODUCT. Why that is so hard for people to understand is beyond me. Buy a RedHat product, don't vent on a community project which apparently has nothing to do with you or your needs.
There are probably two reasons why he's so upset:
1) Intellectual: Redhat radically changed the focus of the product when they changed it from RHL to FC. For a large portion of us, RHL met our needs. For another large portion of us, FC does not. So, we had a product that we loved and could rely upon, and now (as you stated), FC does not. So we now have to spend the time and effort to find a distro that *does* meet our needs, time and effort that are dearly needed elsewhere. Plus, some of us staked our professional reputations on RHL and the migration path from RHL to RH. That path no longer exists, because there is no way in hell that I (for one) will ever install FC2 on a client's production server. Used to be I could install RHL and show them how things could be better than Windows, then get them to purchase RHN or RHEL. No longer.
2) Denial, grief and anger are standard emotional responses in any loss. When you get emotionally invested in something and it gets taken away, you *will* have "loss issues". Case in point: I was *proud* to be using RHL, I promoted it at every opportunity, to everybody, secure in the knowledge that it was stable and each release would be supported long enough to be a viable windows replacement. Now that RHL is gone and FC doesn't even pretend to be a replacement, I feel like the rug's been jerked out from under me.
- At first I tried to deny that RHL was gone, thinking that I could just use FC and things would go on.
- Then I got angry. How *dare* RH remove the product that I loved so much and replace it with something that was *designed* to force me to buy a product? How dare they remove the product that I used to bragg about to all of my family, friends, and acquaintences?
- Then I started trying to "make deals" with folks on this list. "If only the FC developers" would do x, y, or z, then we'd be okay. We'd be back to that good ol' RHL once again, just with another name.
- Then I got depressed. I'd lost a friend, after all. Or perhaps that friend became permanently crippled is a better way to look at it.
- Now I'm somewhere between the depressed and acceptance stages. I've realized that FC is simply not going to be able to live up to RHL and I'm going to have to find another home. It's a shame, really, because now that our shop is moving to linux, we very well may move to Novell's SuSe instead of RHEL. We're evaluating Open Exchange as I type this, and it's been very cool. We like Novell's track record on support and stability. RH's lost the one advantage that they had, which was that we could test things out for free and then upgrade when we were ready. Now that they no longer have that advantage, Novell's looking better for corporate customers.
So, yes, he's upset. I was also. I'm learning to let go. I'm still on this list to learn. But unfortunately the FC community has decided that FC is to be an OS by geeks for geeks. This is fine, as I'm a geek and enjoy messing with unstable distros for fun. But IMHO, RH's move removed the last free, stable distro that was appropriate for the masses. You may think that this is okay. Myself, I'm still grieving.
Ben
Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs
[...]
There are probably two reasons why he's so upset:
- Intellectual: Redhat radically changed the focus of the product when
they changed it from RHL to FC. For a large portion of us, RHL met our needs. For another large portion of us, FC does not. So, we had a product that we loved and could rely upon, and now (as you stated), FC does not.
Can you not continue to use RHL? If you're concerned about updates, etc. there's the Fedora Legacy project (http://www.fedoralegacy.org/) which continues to provide updates to RHL all the way back to 7.x
Plus, some of us staked our professional reputations on RHL and the migration path from RHL to RH. That path no longer exists, because there is no way in hell that I (for one) will ever install FC2 on a client's production server. Used to be I could install RHL and show them how things could be better than Windows, then get them to purchase RHN or RHEL. No longer.
Can they not use RHEL without having to go via FC2? RHL to FC1 is relatively painless, if you feel they absolutely must try a Fedora distribution before going on to RHEL.
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 06:14, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
So, yes, he's upset. I was also. I'm learning to let go. I'm still on this list to learn. But unfortunately the FC community has decided that FC is to be an OS by geeks for geeks. This is fine, as I'm a geek and enjoy messing with unstable distros for fun. But IMHO, RH's move removed the last free, stable distro that was appropriate for the masses. You may think that this is okay. Myself, I'm still grieving.
--- I noticed
Are we still on this thread?
Craig
Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
But unfortunately the FC community has decided that FC is to be an OS by geeks for geeks.
I don't think that is true. But I think the model they have chosen, with frequent upgrades, means that changes are not as well-tested as they used to be.
I think the FC development team should consider if this policy is in danger of losing support. The distro should be aimed at newbies, IMHO. Everyone was a newbie once.
Am Di, den 15.06.2004 schrieb Christensen Tom um 18:54:
* snipped whining about 2 meanwhile fixed bugs - Fix the crashes on boot on Asus P4P800 boards. (#121819) in errata kernel 2.6.6-1.427 and Dual-boot by instructions on how to use fdisk (that bug is not Fedora specific! *
was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
Would you please be so kind and let us know for what you pay 50,000 USD (hope the currency fits and its not Pesos) a year in licenses? Certainly you mean RHEL subscription fees? Well, but how is that related with the Fedora Project? <cynicism>Or do you offer the one fixing the 2 bugs 50,000 $?</cynicism>
Alexander
Christensen Tom wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
Tom, I appreciate your frustration, but FC has time based releases rather than WHEN ITS READY. See http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html for details. This seems to favor more rapid development -vs- more stability. RHEL would seem to more closely allign with WHEN ITS READY releases.
Dale
First of all, if I understand OP's threat, I think migrating his entire company from RHEL to another distro because he doesn't like FC2 would be nuts. Be that as it may, he may have a legitimate quibble. To me, any Fedora Core distribution says "Use at your own risk"; a "release" version says "Probably stable and reasonably bug-free, no guarantees"; a "test" version says "untested" or "partially tested". It would be majorly helpful to me if problems such as OP describes and others--personally I haven't even gotten the install to run on my machine yet, though I haven't tried lately--were discovered and fixed before the "release" phase. The fact that they weren't--OP claims they were discovered but not fixed--may be indicative of a need for more users of the "test" releases. The work done on this list and elsewhere should make it very unlikely that such problems will make it into RHEL, though if they do it's officially supported. My $.02.
David Liguori
Christensen Tom said:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people.
Just curious, are you trying to alienate yourself from everybody on the list? I never considered myself part of "you people" before, but perhaps as a user and (slight) contributor to the list that puts me in the category you so widely describe.
Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
Yes, threats are very valuable tool when trying to resolve problems. You seem to have that mastered. Now.. feel better? Do you have any thing constructive to add?
The problems you refer to have never affected me, I guess I'm just the lucky one.
You forgot to say who you represent.. I surely don't want to support you either by buying any products you make. Sure, you're angry because your no-cost-to-get copy of FC2 caused you some grief.... cry me a river, build a bridge and GET OVER IT! Work constructively to solve the problem....
Sheesh.... "What a maroon!" - Bugs Bunny
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 12:54, Christensen Tom wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again. You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!! How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!! Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
I have one statement to address...
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or...
I'm sorry, did I read this correctly. You are given (free I might add) this OS. Either contribute to the project, or be appreciative.
There's a reason people by RHEL licenses, and don't go with Fedora. They are two separate product lines (Like Honda and Acura). If you want something super stable with support, pay for it, use RHEL 3. If you want cutting edge, cross your fingers and use fedora. Use part of your 50K to buy a few WS licenses, or keep RH9 and use fedora legacy.
Did you really think moving to the 2.6 kernel was going to be pain free?
Grow up Tom.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000, Christensen Tom wrote:
First of all, nobody's pretending the Fedora project is some kind of 100% solid, enterprise level distribution, suitable for mission critical application, but your *degree* of dissent is wholly unrealistic, and frankly, not entirely believable.
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people.
Whom are you addressing? This is a mailing list for Fedora Core *users*, not developers, maintainers, packagers or QA people, and it *certainly* is not a list for Red Hat engineers or management. Anyone from those groups *might* read this list, but what you are doing is akin to walking into PC World and screaming "Windows ate my hard drive ... I'm going to sue you all", shortly before being driven away in a white van.
Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1
Repeat after me, "Fedora Core is not Red Hat", it is only *sponsored* by Red Hat.
The first 3 sentences on http://fedora.redhat.com states quite clearly:
"The Fedora Project is a Red-Hat-sponsored and community-supported open source project. It is also a proving ground for new technology that may eventually make its way into Red Hat products. It is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc."
If Burger King sponsored the SuperBowl, and your team lost, would you blame Burger King?
but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug)
Both of these issues have already been addressed.
that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed
You managed to post to this list, but you didn't manage to read its archives?
I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again.
Yes, but what about Fedora?
I wonder what distro you'll be using after you've posted similar rants to the Mandrake, Suse, and Debian lists? Gentoo perhaps, or maybe just building your own Linux From Scratch. Maybe you should try it, then you'd realise what an idiot you've made of yourself, ranting inanely about relatively trivial (and short lived) bugs in a vast codebase, that takes an incredible amount of hard work and dedication to maintain.
You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name
Which product? Has Fedora Core 1 been destroyed? Red Hat 9.0? RHEL?
An experimental distribution, based on bleeding edge security enhancements from the NSA, and a next generation kernel, is released under the name Fedora Core 2. It has some bugs ... that affects you personally ... and *that* "destroys" the whole future of Fedora, Red Hat, and probably the world as we know it ... right?
You come on like some big cheese manager, but you talk like a twelve year old. Please find your brain, then engage it, before discrediting the work of an entire community of Linux enthusiasts and developers, based on trivialities associated with an experimental release.
by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!!
Once again, from the first sentence on:
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule
"We have set a very aggressive schedule for Fedora Core 2."
They want us to "test" bleeding edge technologies, and they want them tested *early* because they are *pushing* that technology. Did you even *read* any of that website?
How could you let 2 bugs of this magnitude go completely unresolved through 3 test releases and the final release when you knew about both of them immediately after test 1 was released in February??!!
You are absolutely right. Next time we're working our way through test releases, we will drop everything, stop fixing the thousands of other bugs, and put your two upstream kernel/parted bugs right at the top of the list, thereby letting everything else slide, while we wait a couple of months for Alan or Linus to finish scratching their heads and chewing on Asus motherboards.
We'll have the next release ready by 2012; coincidentally about the same time as Windows Longhorn.
That OK for you?
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or ...
"I'll blow you away, mother$&*")!"?
Oh yes Sir, right away Sir, anything you say Sir.
No, how about "... or I'll sue"? That would be funny:
You: "Your Honour, I wish to sue the Open Source Community"
Judge: "What is the basis of your complaint?"
You: "That a community based, Open Source, GNU/Linux Operating System Distribution, that I obtained and used at absolutely no cost, contained at lease two bugs, that I'm aware of, and I didn't like it."
Judge: "Do you have any evidence to support your case?"
You: "They admit liability, your Honour"
Judge: "Very well; I'll need citations from all the defendants."
Court Assistant: "Call the first defendant!"
... 20 years later ...
Court Assistant's Grandson: "Call defendant number 112,474,419!"
Meanwhile, the Judge, on the verge of retirement, sits disinterested at the back of the courtroom, playing "Unreal Tournament 2024 Linux", on a 200 Terahertz "Fedora Core 62 <Ummagumma>" widescreen PDA.
you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control.
So you work in Purchasing Logistics? Hmm, well get out your calculator out and add this together:
Fedora Core 1 $0.00 Fedora Core 2 +$0.00 =$?.??
So what you are saying is, that because you found 2 bugs in an OSS product that is sponsored by a commercial company, you are going to "punish" the sponsor by using your corporate position of influence to dissuade your company from buying an unrelated product from the sponsor?
I'm just wondering which scenario is more likely, that you are a complete figment of your own imagination, or that your employer is blissfully ignorant of how dangerously under-qualified you are.
We will be moving to Novell/Suse. Thank you, Tom Christensen
That *is* a truly inspired management decision, Mr. Tom Christensen. SuSE Linux isn't even remotely similar to Fedora or Red Hat. They don't use those nasty kernel things or anything. You won't be using the same window managers, applications, tools or games either. In fact it isn't even really GNU/Linux you know. No, the OS is actually a joint venture between Microsoft and Apple, that they've been keeping secret for years. No more problems for you then. Here's a quick preview of what your new shiny Desktop will look like:
http://www.genesis-x.nildram.co.uk/images/teletubbiesXP.jpg
Off you go then ...
- K.
Beware the Lizard, for he hath a pointy tongue.
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:07, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Thanks for that, my VMware guest OS just got a new backdrop... :)
Cheers Steffen.
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:12:09 +1000, Steffen Kluge wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:07, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
Thanks for that, my VMware guest OS just got a new backdrop... :)
Plenty more where that came from, mostly provided by MS themselves.
I particularly like the "dirty drainpipes" backdrop, although they forgot to include the next two in the series ... "Bill Gates pissing into a cracked urinal" and "Steve Ballmer with constipation on the bog" in the toilet facilities at Redmond ... otherwise known as the Developers Department. I've got them here somewhere though ...
- K.
Christensen Tom wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction bla bla bla bla bla blablablbalbl ablablablblabl
Ignore this guy, he is obviously smoking crack. His dual boot problem is not a Fedora issue, it's a 2.6 issue which SuSE and Mandrake also has. Tom, why the hell are you using Fedora for production servers? That's just plain stupid. Stop your complaining and put away your crack pipe.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 04:54:11PM +0000, Christensen Tom wrote:
destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!!
"Release early, release often" is the catch phrase I usually associate with open source software that moves at a rapid development pace like Fedora. Seems rather at odds with your expectations. Perhaps Red Hat's enterprise products would better meet your needs.
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse.
If you're using Fedora, you're definitely not giving them much in the way of money for it. Community-supported product. Repeat that phrase to yourself a few times until you get it. Fedora and Red Hat's enterprise lineup have nothing to do with each other, other than Red Hat providing infrastructure (and a few employees ;-).
And if you think the non-Red Hat members of this list give a damn about your "take my ball and go home" hissy fit attitude, you're quite mistaken. Not that I think you have "an estimated 50k/yr in licenses" in your control; if you did, you'd be talking to your sales rep about this, rather than whining and making demands on the public mailing list of a community-driven product from your Hotmail account.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again.
Umm, Fedora is *NOT* a RedHat product. It is a community project sponsored by RedHat, but it is explicitly not a product supported by RedHat.
You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!!
Fedora is considered to be a "cutting edge" distribution for "new technologies and enhancements that may be incorporated into Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the future." It is explicitly not recommended for production applications. For that, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is explicitly recommended.
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse.
If you are controlling enterprise licenses, you should not be deploying Fedora on your production equipment anyway. Get real.
John Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again.
Umm, Fedora is *NOT* a RedHat product. It is a community project sponsored by RedHat, but it is explicitly not a product supported by RedHat.
You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!!
Fedora is considered to be a "cutting edge" distribution for "new technologies and enhancements that may be incorporated into Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the future." It is explicitly not recommended for production applications. For that, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is explicitly recommended.
Get your act together re-release new ISOs that fix these 2 problems within 2 weeks or you are costing redhat an estimated 50k/yr in licenses that I control. We will be moving to Novell/Suse.
If you are controlling enterprise licenses, you should not be deploying Fedora on your production equipment anyway. Get real.
I'd like to say that I'm sure everyone is sorry you had your problems but I can't see how your misplaced anger is of benefit to the Fedora community. I therefore recommend you use Microsoft Windows XP or buy a Mac and leave anything more complex - & us - alone. If I were as nasty as you I would suggest that the people you know probably know that you are not a credible source of information and prone to attacks of unresearched, unsubstantiated, irrelevant & undeserved accusations & heresay and therefore your denial of recommendation might actually be a good thing for both Redhat and for Fedora. If you want the benefits of a commercial operating system, then buy one. Otherwise thank you for keeping such statements to yourself and thank you for contributing to the Fedora community with suggestions or work or bug reports and thank you for reading about Fedora before going off half-cocked. Good luck & best wishes to you.
Marc
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:12:59PM -0500, John Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:54:11 +0000 "Christensen Tom" paveraware@hotmail.com wrote:
I would just like to publicly voice my complete and utter disatisfaction with you people. Redhat has been my linux of choice for 6 years, and I appreciated FC1, but since I can't install FC2 because of 2 very huge bugs (the dual booting bug, and the Asus Mobo bug) that were known well in advance of release, and were not fixed, and remain unfixed, I will never be using or recommending a redhat product ever again.
Umm, Fedora is *NOT* a RedHat product. It is a community project sponsored by RedHat, but it is explicitly not a product supported by RedHat.
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
You have seriously destroyed a good product and a good name by not following the #1 tenet of open source software, namely RELEASE WHEN ITS READY!!!
Fedora is considered to be a "cutting edge" distribution for "new technologies and enhancements that may be incorporated into Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the future." It is explicitly not recommended for production applications. For that, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is explicitly recommended.
At 08:04 6/17/2004, akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:12:59PM -0500, John Thompson wrote:
Umm, Fedora is *NOT* a RedHat product. It is a community project
sponsored by RedHat, but it is explicitly not a product supported by RedHat.
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system.
And I have four people currently working on recycling donated old computers to give away as charity to orphanages. If those computers break later, it's my fault because we put in the money, time, and effort to make sure a Good Thing was available to someone else? If we make a mistake, of course we would try to fix it. But if we make a mistake, then you would cease to buy my products (say, new computers) because my efforts at helping the community (and of course myself via publicity et al.) are not perfect?
Sorry, Aaron... Just Plain Wrong [tm]. Red Hat, Inc. has a product line consisting primarily of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. They sell and support those products. Period. End of story.
HOWEVER, Red Hat would not have a product to sell/support at all if it weren't for the many thousands of developers in the community who produce X, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, ncurses, iptables, and a few thousand other packages. Red Hat depends on that community of developers to be healthy and to make progress so their product can be better. In order to make sure that packages they include do get better, Red Hat pays programmers to work on many packages within Linux; this is a way to contribute back to the community and be a good citizen while also helping yourself.
Fedora is a part of the Linux community. Red Hat specifically says "Fedora is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc." Red Hat *is* the driving force behind Fedora, and this is one of the ways in which they help the Linux community while also helping themselves. But do not confuse this with "they make it, therefore they're entirely responsible for it." Simply not true.
Cheers,
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 10:10, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Fedora is a part of the Linux community. Red Hat specifically says "Fedora is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc." Red Hat *is* the driving force behind Fedora, and this is one of the ways in which they help the Linux community while also helping themselves. But do not confuse this with "they make it, therefore they're entirely responsible for it." Simply not true.
Cheers,
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz
Intellectually, this sounds great. And intellectually it is true. I made the comment earlier, that this does indeed reflect on Red Hat. Not because they are responsible, but because they are associated. While within this forum we acknowledge that Fedora is leading edge and as such may suffer some setbacks/bugs. However, the news and trade rags associate Fedora with Red Hat. Indeed, to borrow from the Linux Show, "some clueless pundits" call it Red Hat Fedora. So it becomes guilt by association. So if Fedora gets a black eye, Red Hat shares in that. Do you think that Eweek understands that it is a testing ground and leading edge, community supported? While I agree that Fedora is community supported and leading edge, thus prone to bugs, etc, the general public may not. I also agree that Fedora should never be used for production machines unless fully tested and with the caveat that you are on your own. The OP was expressing frustration. Granted it was not prudent to put Core 2 in a production/workplace environment without thorough testing first, but sometimes, we have to let people blow off steam a bit. Then we can talk to them rationally. Try to sort things through. I was hit with the XP issue and Sean very nicely helped me with some debugging. We did finally after jumping through many hoops get it to boot to XP. Unfortunately, XP still won't boot, but at least it gets to the ntloader. I use Core 2 at home and work. I like it. There are some bugs with it, not sure if it is because of things I did or Core 2, but I am working through it. Fedora is a great product. I support it as best I can. Red Hat is to be commended. But they also need to be wary of any major issues with Fedora as the trade rags do associate Red Hat and Fedora and it will reflect on them. Just another angle to look at. Ed.
At 08:35 6/17/2004, Edward Croft wrote:
I made the comment earlier, that this does indeed reflect on Red Hat. Not because they are responsible, but because they are associated. [...] Red Hat is to be commended. But they also need to be wary of any major issues with Fedora as the trade rags do associate Red Hat and Fedora and it will reflect on them. Just another angle to look at.
Oh, you are entirely correct. Red Hat does need to be careful that people don't see a bug in Fedora and jump straight to "Red Hat makes unstable software!" which some trade rags, some clueless pundits, and more than a few dumbass users will. Perception is a good part of reality.
I agree with you... I just vehemently disagree with those who claim that because FC is associated with and sponsored by RH, then it is by definition a *product* of RH and why can't we see that... I'm sure you know what I mean.
Cheers,
Edward Croft wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 10:10, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
<snip for brevity>
Fedora is a part of the Linux community. Red Hat specifically says "Fedora is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc." Red Hat *is* the driving force behind Fedora, and this is one of the ways in which they help the Linux community while also helping themselves. But do not confuse this with "they make it, therefore they're entirely responsible for it." Simply not true.
Cheers,
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz
Intellectually, this sounds great. And intellectually it is true. I made the comment earlier, that this does indeed reflect on Red Hat. Not because they are responsible, but because they are associated. While within this forum we acknowledge that Fedora is leading edge and as such may suffer some setbacks/bugs. However, the news and trade rags associate Fedora with Red Hat. Indeed, to borrow from the Linux Show, "some clueless pundits" call it Red Hat Fedora. So it becomes guilt by association. So if Fedora gets a black eye, Red Hat shares in that. Do you think that Eweek understands that it is a testing ground and leading edge, community supported? While I agree that Fedora is community supported and leading edge, thus prone to bugs, etc, the general public may not. I also agree that Fedora should never be used for production machines unless fully tested and with the caveat that you are on your own. The OP was expressing frustration. Granted it was not prudent to put Core 2 in a production/workplace environment without thorough testing first, but sometimes, we have to let people blow off steam a bit. Then we can talk to them rationally. Try to sort things through. I was hit with the XP issue and Sean very nicely helped me with some debugging. We did finally after jumping through many hoops get it to boot to XP. Unfortunately, XP still won't boot, but at least it gets to the ntloader. I use Core 2 at home and work. I like it. There are some bugs with it, not sure if it is because of things I did or Core 2, but I am working through it. Fedora is a great product. I support it as best I can. Red Hat is to be commended. But they also need to be wary of any major issues with Fedora as the trade rags do associate Red Hat and Fedora and it will reflect on them. Just another angle to look at. Ed.
Unfortunately you're right in many ways, Ed, I think. In a world where perception is everything and the truth does not matter and gap that's open for people to spread misinformation is an opportunity for the social engineers and the ignorant alike to work their fud magic. It is a sad thing, but because some people cannot be bothered to read a single web page the potential end result is that the public has to miss out on things like FC2. But isn't it always the way? The voice of the few stuffing it up for the many because of dispersal of responsibility (i.e. someone else is bound to do it).
As far as what my voice counts, I say "to hell" with those that are looking for commercial products for nothing and that I would fight for (within reason) the Fedora project to stay *exactly* like it is.
Coud you image Microsoft making their longhorn publically available so that when it realeases it as a commercial product it is more or less bug-free and extremely easy & stable? Don't think so. There marketing arm would never go for that.
Umm, Fedora is *NOT* a RedHat product. It is a community project
sponsored by RedHat, but it is explicitly not a product supported by RedHat.
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
But are there not OTHER Linux distributions that could be used? Some may not be free either, but will still be less than XP licences and come with "paid" support.
As far as being "no reason why known bugs cannot be fixed", isn't that exactly what this community project IS doing? As was stated previously, one of Fedora mandates is to release new version as specific times. That sort of means "ready or not", but I'm sure everyone tries to make sure that catastrophic bugs are eliminated or otherwise minimized prior to public release.
It would be irresponsible to use an untested OS in any enterprise, just because it is cheaper (or free). That is similar to owning a property without any insurance.
I for one am very impressed with Fedora Core 2. But I am even more impressed with the support that is given right here by users and developers alike.
- - s r b - - /mnt/this! fedora core 2, kernel 2.6.6, amd 2500+, ocz ddr400-512, asus a7n8x-x, msi fx5200-128.
akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
Aaron, I disagree with some of your arguments. Just because you cannot afford RHEL does not mean that you MUST use FC. There are many other free alternatives (Debian, Gentoo, *BSD, etc). Also, there are reasons that bugs can't get fixed. Sometimes there is no time or money or priority to fix a bug. Sometimes there is not enough interest (rare hardware). Sometimes a fix breaks other things and you have to weigh the good of one vs good of many. I'm not suggesting that any of these apply to this problem is particular. Rather I am arguing that statements containing MUST or NO REASON or "other all or nothing words" are generally false.
Dale
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:04:32 -0500 akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
Ahh, it finally comes out, its not about you wanting to provide testers, its about what _you_ need!
Fedora is not a product, it's not for sale, you can't buy it. RedHat is under no obligation to provide you with ANYTHING let alone something you can afford. RedHat has educational offerings that are very reasonably priced. There are other distributions that are available as well. You could make your own distribution too. You seem to think RedHat owes you something. Very Strange.
RedHat is probably the victim of their own success, they "trained" way too many people into thinking Linux was a no-cost operating system. They didn't do a good job letting people know it was about freedom, not necessarily zero dollars. Way too many people ended up thinking it was a freebie, taking it for granted and not being the least bit thankful or respectful.
Now we have to listen to people make post after post complaining that there is no free ride any more. Guess what, there never was, you just misunderstood the situation. Now it's time for people to get the message. Will some people leave RedHat? Yes of course they will, but they weren't the people keeping RedHat in business anyway. People who enjoy the benefits of RedHats contributions (and that's all Linux users, including users of other distributions) should hope for their financial success.
The overreaction to a few bugs making it into a Fedora is stunning. Future releases will be better, well who knows some may be worse, but that hardly matters. Fedora is still a great contribution from RedHat; but that doesn't mean its for everybody. If Fedora isn't appropriate for your needs, find something that is.
Regards, Sean
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:06:08PM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:04:32 -0500 akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
Ahh, it finally comes out, its not about you wanting to provide testers, its about what _you_ need!
Fedora is not a product, it's not for sale, you can't buy it. RedHat is under no obligation to provide you with ANYTHING let alone something you can afford. RedHat has educational offerings that are very reasonably priced. There are other distributions that are available as well. You could make your own distribution too. You seem to think RedHat owes you something. Very Strange.
RedHat is probably the victim of their own success, they "trained" way too many people into thinking Linux was a no-cost operating system. They didn't do a good job letting people know it was about freedom, not necessarily zero dollars. Way too many people ended up thinking it was a freebie, taking it for granted and not being the least bit thankful or respectful.
Now we have to listen to people make post after post complaining that there is no free ride any more. Guess what, there never was, you just misunderstood the situation. Now it's time for people to get the message. Will some people leave RedHat? Yes of course they will, but they weren't the people keeping RedHat in business anyway. People who enjoy the benefits of RedHats contributions (and that's all Linux users, including users of other distributions) should hope for their financial success.
The overreaction to a few bugs making it into a Fedora is stunning. Future releases will be better, well who knows some may be worse, but that hardly matters. Fedora is still a great contribution from RedHat; but that doesn't mean its for everybody. If Fedora isn't appropriate for your needs, find something that is.
Regards, Sean
In someways what you say is true but RedHat offerers no more support to me with fedora that it offered on any other distribution. In fact what happened is something I have said all along. You can not make money selling open software which you also give away. The truth is there is a distribution of Linux called Centos which is RH Enterprise Linux fully free in binary and source form with out the proprietary extras. So actually I could afford RedHat Enterprise Linux without paying them. And get the support I have always gotten from user lists.- ------------------------------------------- Aaron Konstam Computer Science Trinity University One Trinity Place. San Antonio, TX 78212-7200
telephone: (210)-999-7484 email:akonstam@trinity.edu
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:27:24 -0500 akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
In someways what you say is true but RedHat offerers no more support to me with fedora that it offered on any other distribution. In fact what
It offers much less support with Fedora.
happened is something I have said all along. You can not make money selling open software which you also give away. The truth is there is
Probably true, which is why RedHat is pursuing a business model of selling premium service to customers who can afford it and value it.
a distribution of Linux called Centos which is RH Enterprise Linux fully free in binary and source form with out the proprietary extras. So actually I could afford RedHat Enterprise Linux without paying them. And get the support I have always gotten from user lists.-
Without commenting on using a RHEL clone i'll just say that at the very least this is one more reason not to complain about Fedora.
Cheers, Sea
At 15:27 6/17/2004, akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
In someways what you say is true but RedHat offerers no more support to me with fedora that it offered on any other distribution.
In every way, what he says is true. And if you have the same level of support you used to have, what are you upset about?
In fact what happened is something I have said all along. You can not make money selling open software which you also give away.
Well, thank God Red Hat, Inc. has managed it for a few years now. I hope they continue to manage it for decades longer and will do my best to help them.
The truth is there is a distribution of Linux called Centos which is RH Enterprise Linux fully free in binary and source form with out the proprietary extras. So actually I could afford RedHat Enterprise Linux without paying them. And get the support I have always gotten from user lists.-
There is also WBEL and there are others. Remember, however, that those projects are not adding value on their own. They are able to exist and operate because Red Hat made the decision to allow it and make it workable, by supplying SRPMS of all packages and upgrades freely to all, regardless of whether or not you've bought something from them. They are going *beyond* what the GPL requires... not only adding value but also giving away more, and doing so by choice not by force.
Given that this is the case, and that by your statements I infer that you are *not* paying Red Hat for anything, again... what are you upset about, and why would you believe you have a legitimate grievance against them?
Cheers,
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 21:27, akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:06:08PM -0400, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:04:32 -0500 akonstam@trinity.edu wrote:
Statments like this make me angry. The people who distribute fedora work for RedHat. RedHat distributes Fedora. Fedora is a redhat product used to test ideas that will be put in the Enterprise system. Tom got over heated but many of us who can't afford to buy 80 RedHat Enterprise systems must rely on Fedora. And there is no reason that known bugs can't be fixed.
We can't afford to licence 80 Windows XP systems either.
Ahh, it finally comes out, its not about you wanting to provide testers, its about what _you_ need!
Fedora is not a product, it's not for sale, you can't buy it. RedHat is under no obligation to provide you with ANYTHING let alone something you can afford. RedHat has educational offerings that are very reasonably priced. There are other distributions that are available as well. You could make your own distribution too. You seem to think RedHat owes you something. Very Strange.
RedHat is probably the victim of their own success, they "trained" way too many people into thinking Linux was a no-cost operating system. They didn't do a good job letting people know it was about freedom, not necessarily zero dollars. Way too many people ended up thinking it was a freebie, taking it for granted and not being the least bit thankful or respectful.
Now we have to listen to people make post after post complaining that there is no free ride any more. Guess what, there never was, you just misunderstood the situation. Now it's time for people to get the message. Will some people leave RedHat? Yes of course they will, but they weren't the people keeping RedHat in business anyway. People who enjoy the benefits of RedHats contributions (and that's all Linux users, including users of other distributions) should hope for their financial success.
The overreaction to a few bugs making it into a Fedora is stunning. Future releases will be better, well who knows some may be worse, but that hardly matters. Fedora is still a great contribution from RedHat; but that doesn't mean its for everybody. If Fedora isn't appropriate for your needs, find something that is.
Regards, Sean
In someways what you say is true but RedHat offerers no more support to me with fedora that it offered on any other distribution. In fact what happened is something I have said all along. You can not make money selling open software which you also give away. The truth is there is a distribution of Linux called Centos which is RH Enterprise Linux fully free in binary and source form with out the proprietary extras. So actually I could afford RedHat Enterprise Linux without paying them. And get the support I have always gotten from user lists.-
---- There are others such as White Box...
Of course you are assuming: - trust for these packagers - that the packages haven't been altered, not possible since some amount of alteration is required to not violate Red Hat trademarks - that they will provide timely updates - RHEL actually includes phone/web based end user support - that if you actually call them for support that you might get it
These lists do not track with the RHEL products. RHEL uses older and more stable versions of things.
But of course we are talking open source stuff...
Craig
-
- - s r b - - -
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Alexander Dalloz -
Benjamin J. Weiss -
Christensen Tom -
Craig White -
dalen -
David Liguori -
Don Russell -
Ed Marshall -
Edward Croft -
John Thompson -
John Thompson -
Keith G. Robertson-Turner -
Marc Lucke -
Michael Gargiullo -
Rodolfo J. Paiz -
Sean -
Steffen Kluge -
Timothy Murphy -
Trond Are Haugland