51–60 of 257 posts
This is a pretty timely statement of values and development ideology apropos Canonical's sudden pivot from fragmenting the Linux desktop community.
What are you referring to?
There are a lot of talented people working at this company, without a doubt. But these are the same people that brought you systemd and SATELLITE. Has anyone here ever USED Satellite (6.x) ?!
Get this off my news feed.
Red Hat or the Microsoft of Linux is the face palm of linux distros, forget dependency hell, how on earth someone choose rpm over first class Superior Debian package system or distros like Ubuntu? People just buy it for the support even if the Red Hat they use is Gnome 2 and Firefox V.3.0. Then finally RHCA/RHCE courses, i should get certified from this distro to prove my Linux skills for the companies even though i…
(Note: satire. I use and love both Ubuntu and Arch.)
> The Next Red Hat Please build officially Red Hat backed Fedora Tables. This will be a win to win situation for both sides.
More than 15 years ago, I worked for a Linux services company that competed with Red Hat. We sometimes saw them or were invited to see them rather negatively (as the competition), and I particularly remember that an ad agency that wanted our business once shipped us a box containing a burnt red hat (!). Time has shown that Red Hat really knows what they're doing, on many different levels, and they're the most success…
> they're the most successful free software business in history. Aren't they also the only successful free software business in history? Asking seriously, since I am not aware of any other examples. And I suppose it depends on your definitions of success, of course.
Red Hat was primary reason it took me a lot longer to adopt Linux than it should have. Headbanging experiences with dependency hell and things not working as expected left me extremely discouraged. It wasn't until I dabbled a little with Solaris 7 and finally found Slackware that I realized that Linux could "just work". IMO Red Hat's success was primarily based on the critical mass of support behind it, not because i…
Have you considered the possibility that your poor experience with Red Hat was due to the fact you were new to Linux? Encountering dependency hell is usually a sign that you don't know what you're doing. Red Hat "just works" and has always enjoyed the reputation of being the most bulletproof distro if you could afford it.
I've always heard that said about Debian more than about Red Hat (though Red Hat certainly is pretty stable).
Red Hat has a lot more success in businesses though because you can get contractual support; which may not only be useful if you don't want to get the skills in-house but also because your own customer may contractually require it.
Red Hat was primary reason it took me a lot longer to adopt Linux than it should have. Headbanging experiences with dependency hell and things not working as expected left me extremely discouraged. It wasn't until I dabbled a little with Solaris 7 and finally found Slackware that I realized that Linux could "just work". IMO Red Hat's success was primarily based on the critical mass of support behind it, not because i…
Dependency hell is why I became a Mandrake and later a Mandriva user. URPMI was groundbreaking. I didn't give up Mandriva until near the end, when I jumped ship to Ubuntu.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The software is free, is it not? Red Hat's business model is subscription based.
No, I am referring to Stallman's view on free software. See below. Software free to download vs "free software" from a license PoV aren't necessarily the same. Redhat's products are best to describe as open source software. https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html
More than 15 years ago, I worked for a Linux services company that competed with Red Hat. We sometimes saw them or were invited to see them rather negatively (as the competition), and I particularly remember that an ad agency that wanted our business once shipped us a box containing a burnt red hat (!). Time has shown that Red Hat really knows what they're doing, on many different levels, and they're the most success…
> ...and I particularly remember that an ad agency that wanted our business once shipped us a box containing a burnt red hat (!). Now that's a great ad agency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but they've certainly come a long way. When I started with Red Hat 6.2, the dependency hell of installing RPMs from random websites and using the (almost never functional) up2date left me with an awful taste in my mouth as I jumped ship to Debian and the "just works" experience of apt-get. After switching to Fedora because we're using CentOS at work, I've come to like it. DNF and yum are fine replacements fo…
Debian and apt-get are the final Linux distribution / package manager I will ever use. Fifteen years of compiling dependency hell, never again.