OSNews

More mature and bugfixed during the development, SLED 10 uses 2.12.

RHGD is based on RHEL 5. RHEL 5 use Gnome 2.16.

Red Hat goes for maturity over cutting edge. If you want cutting edge software (along with the bugs running such software entails) then go with Fedora. Enterprises who value up time and employee productivity will stick with tried and tested software, even if it's not on the bleeding edge.

I don't want to sound too harsh, but this kind of comment shows that some (I dare say many) Linux users have no idea what they are talking about when corporate Linux is discussed.

Unlike the enthusiast to whom Linux is cool enough for any random app crashes to be easily forgiven, people that *pay* for their FLOSS software are not that easygoing, and we should be stupid to ask it from them.

"This app crashed!"
"That's highly unusual, after all it's open source.."
"Well it just did! Damn, did I lose data?"
"Er.. well it *is* actually a bit on the cutting edge, you know, full of cool new features.. and you can file a bug report.. chances are it'll be picked up fairly quickly!"
"I paid a lot of money for this stuff!"
"Oh, I'm sure support will.."
"Now where do I find the latest version that I saved..?
"Let me have a look."
"Reminds me a lot of Windows."
"Er, well, it *is* a computer after all.. might have something to do with sub-optimal hardware too.."
"I want Windows back."

Then, I'm just as biased in favor of free software as the next guy. But let's practice some healthy self-criticism here, how often do we tend to glorify things, leaving some of the real issues out of the picture? How many of us are patient enough to file, say, a real bug report (this is different from posting on the distrowatch comments section that Compiz froze on your Ubuntu box)?

I could be running random editions of Mandriva, Suse, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian Testing (which I did to decide what works best for the school I was setting up a little Linux network in), and it simply does happen relatively frequently, deny it or not, that (graphical) applications crash or are in another way buggy, eat up all of your processor time. Some of the most lauded distros have annoying bugs that I tend to forgive as a Linux home user, but when you see other people using the programs, you'll notice how annoying they may be.

Running the latest Suse for one day and then writing a hundred blog entries on it, calling it a "review", ("I had no issues!") does not mean testing!
And saying that, 'well, MS Office crashes too, once in a while' is not a valid argument for or against anything.
Stuff is good if it's good, it's not good if it's (claimed to be) less bad than something else.

Let's be fair about that, nobody benefits if we proudly wipe our beloved bugs under the carpet.
Therefore, what Red Hat is doing makes perfect sense. Next to my Fedora laptop I'm running a CentOS 5 desktop which is the most stable (true, not the fastest) distribution I've ever run for a longer period of time, Debian Stable coming very close. Taking its version of Gnome as a base makes perfect sense too, therefore. Sure the latest Gnome has some very cool features 2.16 doesn't have.

Most users couldn't care less, can you believe that?

Codices is the plural of codex, a form of book invented by the Romans. You are right, codecs should br the plural of codec.

RHEL and so RHGD use Yum (like Fedora).

I installed RHEL5 and got a command not found when I ran yum update as root.

Sure ?
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRP...

No up2date.
There are :
yum-3.0.1-5.el5
yum-metadata-parser
yum-rhn-plugin-0.4.3-1.el5
yum-rhn-plugin-0.4.3-2.el5

... Including the full Fedora tool-chain (and extra repositories).
(Pirut, Pup/puplet, Yumex and EPEL.)

- Gilboa

This is exactly the kind of behavior the EU anti trust suits are trying to curb.

No, it's not. The EU is going after cases where MS is trying to leverage its dominance in one market to take over another (ie. desktop protocols to servers). There's no such dynamic here.

Sure, it's MS's 'IP' but to license the same codecs to two different companies on totally different terms hearkens back to the bad old 'force OEM's to install only our operating system' days.

Wrong. First, MS has no monopoly on codec technology. So, it's a simple licensing issue. All that Red Hat has to do to get the technology is agree to the license. Red Hat has chosen to put politics (ie. its relationship with the open source community) above pragmatism.

Well, thank the heavens there are alternatives.

Thanks for proving my point.

Maybe if MS was not so stingy on licensing their codecs and protocols, the EU wouldn't have to step in.

You clearly don't understand the dynamic here.

Judging by the reaction other people have had to your post, I'm afraid it seems like your tirade is not very popular. Could that be because you don't actually know what you are talking about?

MS not having a dominant position in the codec market is, at best, highly debatable. None the less, they are the sole copyright holder, and up until recently the only distributer, of the WM codec family.

RedHat wishes to license said codecs for it's own desktop operating system. MS tries to use it's ownership of said codecs in order to forced RedHat to sign a patent deal.

Thankfully, MS have already licensed out said codecs to a third party, namely Fluendo, with further distribution rights thereby enabling RedHat to still legally provide the desired codecs without having to capitulate to MS strong arm tactics.

The licensing deal with Fluendo can be easily trace directly back to the amount of pressure the EU has put on MS for it's anti competitive behavior (you know, that N version of windows?).

I think you'll find that I understand the dynamic perfectly. I also think that you'll find that you fail horribly.

Your inability to adequately reply to a single one of my points, in any valid manner, without resorting to juvenile oneupmanship is truly telling and as far as I am concerned, I will not be replying to anymore of your brain dead drivel.

No matter if you having anything even vaguely interesting to say, do the rest of us a favor and crawl back under that stone you come from.

Pardon? I don't know where you come off making that one. Quicktime and Real simply are AAC/MPEG4 wrapped around in a container.

WMV/WMA/ASF is here and a reality; if Red Hat refuses to sign an agreement with Microsoft - that is their choice, but at the same time they shouldn't run around trying to make out that they were a 'victim'. Its the equivilant of someone saying, "I'll give you a million dollars, and I won't kill you if you sign this contract" and the only reply is, "well, I don't agree with killing" - then refusing to sign the contract.

What I hope is that with Novell's relationship with Microsoft, we'll start seeing their desktop offerings comeing on stream to offer a complete solution to end users. Those who scream about 'evil Microsoft' sound like the same sort of view which communists took to Lenins 'new economic plan' - perish the thought that an ideology becomes polluted with a rational approach.

What would you rather have, Microsoft with 90% of the market place, or 50% because Linux vendors have recognised that Microsoft is here, faced reality and licenced the technology as needed to offer a reasonable level of compatibility.

Edited 2007-10-16 02:03

"""

"""

No. SReilly is focusing on the pertinent issue, and you seem to want to dance around it. MS would not license the codecs to RedHat unless they signed a totally unrelated patent cross-licensing deal. This would be like going into a grocery store and buying a gallon of milk. When you get to the checkout stand, the manager refuses to sell it to you unless you admit that you've been stealing stuff from the store. (Which you have not.) You ask what he thinks you have been stealing and the manager says "stuff", valuable "stuff". And will not sell you the milk unless you sign a paper admitting that you have been stealing the store's valuable "stuff", and entitling you to get more of that valuable "stuff" legally.

It may or may not be illegal. But it is most certainly quite seedy.

Edited 2007-10-16 06:24

"Judging by the reaction other people have had to your post, I'm afraid it seems like your tirade is not very popular. Could that be because you don't actually know what you are talking about? "

What "reaction"? The first one to respond to tomcat's post is you. I guess you're judging "reaction" by the fact that his post was modded down into oblivion but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not like mod points have any relation to the quality of posts around here, for example, this very inane post made today has been modded to a 10:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18773&comment_id=27...

As for this particular case, if Microsoft feels that Red Hat is violating its patents, and violating them *wantonly* and seemingly proclaiming that they are proud to do so, I fail to see why Microsoft should play nice with them. I'm not sure why Red Hat doesn't sign a cross-licensing agreement (Novell *made* money on their MS deal), like any other "grown-up" company would, other than to score brownie points with Microsoft haters. But I predict that Microsoft will release a Linux version of Office with a EULA stating that it's only legal for use on distros whose makers have agreed to patent deals with Microsoft. It would be interesting to see what Red Hat would do then, as it would be very tempting for business that run Linux to dump Red Hat for a distro that could legally run MS Office.

Speaking of "strong arm" tactics, how about Red Hat and the OIN coalition of which it is a part (the group of companies that formed a patent pool as "protection" against anyone that accuses a member of patent violation)? The OIN, it seems to me, has formed a patent "trust" which they can use to violate any patent they wish, secure in the knowledge that if anyone comes after an OIN member for patent violation, then OIN will file thousands of patent suits against the accuser. Whether they actually sue anyone is immaterial; simply the threat to do so (and they have indeed made such threats) seemingly gives them the power (though not the "right") to violate patents at will.

Why should Microsoft be allowed to conflate licensing of their Office product with the OS on which it is running?

If there is any licensing of Office, the end user should pay for the license to run Office via the purchase price of Office. This should be so regardless of what OS the user is running.

It really has nothing to do with the OS. There should be no leverage for Microsoft to strong-arm RedHat by putting illegal restraint-of-trade and anti-competitive anti-trust restrictions in its EULA.



The existance of OIN is driven purely by patent threats against Free Software in the first place. Threats of the type "we say your stuff violates our territory, but we won't say how or where". The fact that "we won't say how or where" is a sure sign that there is, in reality, no real (as in valid, true to the spirit of patent protection in fostering innovation) violation at all. It is a sure sign that Microsoft see patents only as a way to try to destroy competition, not foster it.

The OIN, it seems to me, has formed a patent "trust" which has a perfect record of not suing anyone over patents, and which has made its patents cross-licensed to anyone who wants to participate in the trust. OIN is a near-perfect antithesis of the concept of a "patent troll". It is a collective of organisations wanting to actually make products and not violate each-other patents in the process. A patent co-operative, if you will.

If Microsoft wants to avoid being sued by the OIN there are two very simple acts that Microsoft can take: either (1) don't sue Linux and don't use any of the technology covered by OIN patents, or (2) don't sue Linux, join the OIN and enjoy access to all of the OIN patented technology.

Since Microsoft have said repeatedly that they do not intend to sue Linux, and that they wish to enter cross-licensing deals with Linux, then clearly (2) is the way to go for Microsoft then, isn't it?

If Microsoft want to cross-license with Linux, then Microsoft should join the OIN. It is that simple. It is a no-brainer, really ... if we were to take Microsoft at their word. Doing (1) gets Microsoft nothing. Doing (2) gets Microsoft access to OIN patents.

There is only one conclusion to be reached if Microsoft don't join the OIN ... and that conclusion is that Microsoft actually want to destroy Linux, and not co-exist with it.

Edited 2007-10-16 04:46

LOL! I'll grant you that it seems like I am the only one who had any kind of reaction to Tomcat's post but if you had seen some of the mail in my OSNews inbox as well as having been voted down within about 10 minutes of posting...

As for people voting up daft or useless comments, gotta hand you that one as well. Some of my least favorite, not to mention least proud of, posts have been voted up to ridiculously high numbers but just because useless posts get voted up does not prove that the inverse is correct either. Sure the moderation system is sometimes abused but I find that people generally get voted down for a very good reason.


Nobody can tell if RedHat is 'wantonly' violating MS patents as MS refuses to detail which patents are being violated, so I'm afraid your statement on that issue is pretty much invalidated by MS's own actions.

Neither do I think that RedHat are proud of anything of the kind. They have stated that they would work with MS if MS decided to actually tell them which patents where being infringed yet MS has repeatedly refused to do so.

I'm certainly not going to pretend that I know why RedHat refuses to sign an MS/RedHat patent deal but I think it probably has much to do with any such deal breaking the spirit of the GPL. Scoring point with MS haters is probably an added side bonus ;-).


I, personally, doubt we will see a version of MSOffice ported to Linux for a very long time. Anyway, I doubt such a EULA is legally enforceable in most civilized legal systems.


I really don't see how setting up a patent 'trust' to defend ones self from patent trolls can be equated with strong arm tactics. The OIN is a collaboration between like minded companies wishing to help protect each other from what is rapidly becoming one of the largest hindrances to software innovation since the software industry's inception. The OIN does not threaten unless having been threatened in the first place. Furthermore, there is nothing illegal in businesses, and in this case even competitors, pooling resources in order to help each other out.

Nobody is forcing MS to join the OIN in order to protect themselves from OIN predation, yet if MS really wanted cross patent indemnification they would join OIN in an instant. Again, I'm not even going to pretend to actually know why MS is playing the patent game the way they are, but I suspect it has more to do with scoring marketing points then anyone actually violating their patents.

Edited 2007-10-16 11:15 UTC

Speaking of "strong arm" tactics, how about Red Hat and the OIN coalition of which it is a part (the group of companies that formed a patent pool as "protection" against anyone that accuses a member of patent violation)? The OIN, it seems to me, has formed a patent "trust" which they can use to violate any patent they wish, secure in the knowledge that if anyone comes after an OIN member for patent violation, then OIN will file thousands of patent suits against the accuser. Whether they actually sue anyone is immaterial; simply the threat to do so (and they have indeed made such threats) seemingly gives them the power (though not the "right") to violate patents at will.

This does not qualify as "strong arm", it is called "having your back covered". Last time I checked "strong arm" meant enforcing.

They never abused their position, they never claimed anyone is abusing their IP, in fact they encourage everyone uses it, be it member of OIN or not. The only thing they want in return from you is to "play fair" with others. You got something for free, so let other get some of yours too.

Anyways, patents are stupid anyway. They were created to protect small inventors, but they ended up as their guillotine along with executing small companies in their free time.

Like first, this post has nothing offensive so I modded it up, and hope some one will do that too.

As far as I understand "I don't agree" is not the reason to mod it down.

Hopefully, OSNews will classify this separately from offensive.

Wrong. First, MS has no monopoly on codec technology. So, it's a simple licensing issue. All that Red Hat has to do to get the technology is agree to the license. Red Hat has chosen to put politics (ie. its relationship with the open source community) above pragmatism.

Yes, it hasn't.
No, it isn't.
Problem is that it is not codec license they would need to agree. They would need to bow down and take off their pants.
Pragmatism is what you lack.

i wonder if any of the RHEL clones will clone the global desktop

... CentOS already includes most of the "workstation" software (They won't license the codecs for obvious reasons) - so I doubt that there's a need for CentOS RHGD clone.

- Gilboa

I expect they'd license the DVD codec if needed.

At present there's not many people in coporate office waiting to watch Transformers over tomorrow's luch hour. DVD video isn't that big a need on business workstations as of yet. Media related businesses where watching the final DVD product is a need probably already run osX, have a DVD reader box under the shared tv or can keep an old Win notebok around for such uses.

Fair enough.

Actually, RHEL desktop still exists. Red Hat Global Desktop is truely a different product. Look up more information on it. One primary difference is the channel distribution which means this is a product that is always OEM preloaded. Also the pricing, lifecycle, new features like codecs etc.