On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 20:40, Kevin Anderson wrote: > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 05:48, Matthew Kent wrote: > > > There's no hope at all for Red Hat, in my opinion, but I readily admit, > > > that's a heavily biased opinion with little legitimate basis. > > > > Then why write this? > > They aren't totally unfounded. Just mostly unfounded. It's the stupid > install systems that are now ingrained in LSB (Yes, Aaron, I know it's RPM > the Package Manager, not the installer, but installing an RPM blows compared > to installing an ebuild.) that started this thread. There's no reason to > need people to search for things and then worry about how to install them > except as a method to promote something else. (To which I point to RHN, > which gives you the choice of giving up all sorts of details that they don't > need, on a regular basis, or paying cash, so that you have a repository of > software that SHOULD be free - both in terms of cost, and in terms of > hassles, the two things RH all but took a dump on with RHN.) > > > > > Why bait people with comments like this? > > So that people who run into this stupidity (and think it's their stupidity, > when it it's the distro that's stupid) know that A) they aren't alone. And > B) there are good, solid, solutions available that work as they should. > > I mean, even XP offers to search windows update to find drivers for new > hardware. Even they can see that expecting people to ...go here, find this, > go there, find that, know everything about your system, and then cross your > fingers, and hit install... Isn't workable. Linux users know it too, so > there's apt for rpm, and I've heard great things about it. But RH simply > ignores this, and leave the user hanging, because it MAKES THEM MONEY. > > And that ticks me off. Because the end result is that RH makes money by > making newbies feel like Linux is hard. And that makes Linux look bad. And > neither of these things is legitimate. They're just appearances that help > prop up the company that perpetuates them. And for that reason, RH sucks. > It's also the reason that even they as a company felt that desktop Linux > wasn't viable. So not only do they screw over the individual user who feels > like testing it, but they screw over the rest of the community by effectively > saying "that KDE thing?" It's crap. "Gnome?" Crap too. Neither is actually > something that's useable, and WE"RE the biggest Linux company in North > America. What does that tell me as a) joe user at home, and b) It Manager at > work? It tells me that Linux isn't there yet. It might work eventually, but > it certainly doesn't today. So "where do I want to go today?" Some crappy > OS that isn't there yet, even for the people who "make" it, or with the OS > that's already successfully working on 90% of the PCs on the planet?
I'm confused. Are you talking about RHEL or Fedora? The way I understood it is that RHEL purchasers are entitled to free RHN subscription, while Fedora users are free to install updates from any number of mirrors. Incidentally Fedora comes with yum (RedHat hasn't ignored this improvement), similar to apt, which can be used to install rpms (automatically resolving dependencies) or pointed at a repository to fetch updates just like any number of distributions. As for what RHEL contains for easy updates I have no clue. I'm really not clear were they are sticking it to users. There is column A which wants to pay for support and buys RHEL, and there is column B which downloads and gets free updates from Fedora. There's even a column C of people who want RHEL without the support (http://whiteboxlinux.org/). - Matt _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
