171–180 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Apache Software Foundation is in no way shape or form a business. It's a non-profit with maybe 1 or 2 full-time people (last I recall) and tons of people who commit to projecs.
You're literally reiterating what I said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with dependency hell was more that RedHat back then didn't have such a thing as a "rolling release" or "testing" in Debian speak. So while "RedHat 6" worked fine, trying to upgrade (say) OpenOffice would require that you download the rpm from OO's website, which would require that you upgrade Gnome, which would require that you upgrade X, which would require that you upgrade glibc, and down the rathole. C…
As someone who used Redhat since 5.0 - the RPM database never died for me. But then, I've never used 'rpm --force', which many did and I suspect was the major factor in RPM database death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a myth, or at best relative, not all enterprises accept old for stability Many enterprises want up to date and stable software, and since you are paying for stability, why shouldn't you get fairly recent and stable software Most companies for example don't consider MS SQL 2016 as less stable than MS SQL 2008 or 2012, most users expect the same level of stability from the latest SQL Server than from ea…
Better than ever. With things like Software Collections and IUS you get to run the latest stuff on a rock-solid base. I don't want to upgrade my kernel to get a newer Python or NodeJS release! https://www.softwarecollections.org/ https://ius.io/ https://github.com/iuscommunity-pkg
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.
"What makes us Red Hat" - We hodge podge together 40 different open source projects into a monumental turd of an "enterprise" product (call it something space related) and sell it to unsuspecting managers for their Systems Administrators to deal with. 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…
The supported, RHEL-released version? No. I have used Katello though, we ended up just going with Foreman+Ansible though since the lack of errata in the CentOS update feed made all of the extra features pretty useless.
What problems exactly have you seen? If I was running a proper RHEL shop I would pick it up in a heartbeat along with CloudForms.
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…
i think all package managers (not just redhat's) have come a long way since then. Take a look at the zypper SAT solver (from opensuse) that powers Redhat's DNF package manager today - https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Libzypp_satsolver The package management of today is a very different beast altogether. And we are on the cusp of the next generation - snap and flatpak.
Fixed that for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've built both Debian packages and RPMs, and I feel that RPMs are somewhat easier to wrap your head around. It's been a while since I did Debian package building, though. It's also undeniably true that there was a time when APT + dpkg blew Red Hat's "equivalent" tools out of the water, but that's not the case anymore. One thing I like in particular about dnf/rpm is that I can install packages by using functions, so…
And SPEC files are much easier to work with than Debian's folder full of different files.
It took me days to grok how to make a proper debian package nearly a decade ago when I first did it - writing my first .spec file took an hour or so and now I can hammer most of them out in 15 minutes or less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Installing software on an OS, shouldn't be something that requires ANY experience. What exactly is the point of an OS without the software running on it? If it's not immediately obvious how to do any of it, for a total noob, to a veteran. Then it's a garbage OS in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think about 10 years ago. I was hired 8 years ago and he had been around for a while.
Which would be after PulseAudio but before systemd.
PulseAudio became default in Fedora 8 (August 2007 [1]), and the feature page lists Lennart as the owner, [2] so the time checks out.
[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-Augus...
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeaturePulseaudio