Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

First Look at RHEL 5 - From the New, More Open Red Hat

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the reinvention dept.

Red Hat Software 220

Susie D writes "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 was released today, and Linux Format has an in-depth first look (with screenshots aplenty). With RHEL 5, Red Hat aims to become even more 'open', by using a shorter and clearer SLA, improving community involvement through its Knowledge Base, and providing the new Red Hat Exchange. But what you really want to know is, yes, it does include XGL for fancy 3D desktop effects."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CentOS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18351949)

Let the recompile begin!

Meh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352877)

Does anyone using Lunix actually care about Red Hat anymore? I mean, it's so yesterday. When you have this much fragmentation, why spend time tied to one distro?

Our new flavor of the week is Ubunghole. Red Hat is soooooo 2005. And, by next year, the new distro smell will fade from Ubunghole, and we will move on to something else, preferably with a different text editor, too, because you can never have too many distros, or text editors.

Re:Meh (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353337)

People running mission-critical systems that require rapid, on-demand support where a newsgroup just won't suffice rely on Red Hat (or Sun, who is in a similar position) to provide defined support.

Pfft (-1, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352015)

3D desktop effects? WHY do i need that? WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BUY A NEW VIDEO CARD FOR SOME GAY NEW OS?!!?!?

ITS A FUCKING SCAM AND I'M ANGRY

oh wait, I thought you said vista

LINUX IS ASOME! not as good as apples or google but its still pretty good!

Eh? (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352475)

...just install it w/o Runlevel 5 coming on by default, just like 99.00000% of sysadmins do w/ RHEL.

(now if'n you can get Vista to install w/o a GUI, well - that I've gotta see...)

/P

You mean DOS? (-1, Troll)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352765)

(now if'n you can get Vista to install w/o a GUI, well - that I've gotta see...)

You mean DOS?

Re:You mean DOS? (1, Informative)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353119)

Yes. You do know there's been no actual DOS for the last two versions of Windows at least, right?

Re:Eh? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352803)

just install it w/o Runlevel 5 coming on by default, just like 99.00000% of sysadmins do w/ RHEL.

If that's the case, why do those 99.00000% of sysadmins install X to begin with?

now if'n you can get Vista to install w/o a GUI, well - that I've gotta see...

If you could, the non-GUI usability that has been promised since Win2k would be still be somewhere between awkward and useless.

Actually, I don't. (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352945)

Only requires a moment to stop by the "Software Selection" portion of the initial installation and remove X11 et. al. from the list. I guess that puts me in the top 1.00%, eh?

Re:Eh? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353563)

If that's the case, why do those 99.00000% of sysadmins install X to begin with?

Why do you think such a high percentage installs X at all?

Re:Eh? (1)

segfaultcoredump (226031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353679)

ever try and install something like oracle without any X libs installed? (no, using a tarball from another install does not count)

I've given up on trying to install a striped down system that lack things like X. Then again, none of my systems boot with X running, but it is usually critical to have it there for many applications. (yes, a tivial web server can go without)

Re:Eh? (1, Offtopic)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352989)

(now if'n you can get Vista to install w/o a GUI, well - that I've gotta see...)

Actually with the server version [redmondmag.com] of Vista you will be able to, just hasn't make much sense with the current desktop version. Of course, its a bit funny that this is mentioned as being an innovation in the article, but thats for another day ;-)

$349.99? (0)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352037)

Can this be downloaded for free? I though Red Hat was free?

Re:$349.99? (2, Informative)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352091)

Fedora Core is free, Redhat ENTERPRISE Linux is aimed at companies who want to pay for it.

Re:$349.99? (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352117)

They payment fee goes in part for tech support that is provided, and potentially software that is not freely distributed.

I can't remember if RHEL has a free download or not, but last I saw, several of the software packages were not free.

Re:$349.99? (5, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352127)

Red Hat kindly makes SRPM's available, so yes you could download RHEL for free. You would have to build the system yourself.

Thankfully, others have already done that and made the results available, for instance CentOS [centos.org]

Re:$349.99? (5, Interesting)

dustwun (662589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353339)

While this may come across as sucking up, RedHat deserves LARGE kudos for releasing the src.rpms so readily. Most other commercial vendors don't do this (Look at suse for example). While redhat has made some missteps in the linux business(if you believe ESR), they have stuck to the open source ideals more than most other vendors and still managed to be successful.

Re:$349.99? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352157)

It was free. So, huddle around children because I'm going to talk about a story of how SCO changed the landscape of Linux. . .

Re:$349.99? (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352167)

You must be thinking of Fedora [fedoraproject.org] .

Re:$349.99? (1)

Matrixboy (1072770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352325)

Fedora Core (what Red Hat is based on; I also believe released by the same group) is free, for the exception of the wopping five CDs it needs for installation.

http://fedora.redhat.com/ [redhat.com]

You can download Fedora from there.

I'm sure there are 'ways' to get this version free, however I 3 the company so much I wouldn't have the heart to do it.

Re:$349.99? (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353763)

I'm sure there are 'ways' to get this version free

The above seems to imply that there would be something wrong with that. It isn't. Red Hat releases the complete distribution for free download in source RPM form. You'll have to build it yourself to be able to run it though. Fortunately, there are already projects that do this, such as CentOS and ScientificLinux.

Re:$349.99? (1)

honor, not armor (904095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352379)

You will want to look at CentOS [wikipedia.org] for a (nearly?) exact free version. Alternatively, Fedora Core [wikipedia.org] is a similar flavor that is intended for end-users.

Re:$349.99? (3, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352411)

It is Free. You need a capital F there, bub. Doesn't that make you feel better?

You get to test and develop it for free, and they get to sell it to you for Free.

Re:$349.99? (2, Informative)

goddidit (988396) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352417)

Can this be downloaded for free? I though Red Hat was free?
Red Hat isn't free as in beer, but it will be in available for free in few days... http://centos.org/ [centos.org]

Re:$349.99? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352721)

Of course it is, that's rubbish, you can download the source right off their servers.

Re:$349.99? (1)

smadasam (831582) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352507)

You can download the source and compile it for free if you want. You would be better off looking at CentOS or Vector linux. That is basically what they do. I wonder when CentOS will release their clone of RHEL5.

Re:$349.99? (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353805)

I wonder when CentOS will release their clone of RHEL5.

If you had read the article, you would have found out that they asked CentOS about this. In 14 days is the answer i386 and x86_64, while other architectures such as ia64 have separate release schedules and their release dates were not specified.

Re:$349.99? (2, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353433)

Why, of course, here you have a link to Red Hat RHEL 5 sources [redhat.com] .

They don't give you the compiled iso image, but the sources and modifications are there. But notice that even then it's NOT freely redistributable - you've to remove the redhat copyrighted contents (ie: red hat logos/name in the desktop background, installer, etc). The source code is there though, hence the comply the GPL, and the contribute back to the community (fe., red hat is the main contributor to linux kernel - glibc - gcc)

I hope they finally fixed this... (0, Troll)

The_Abortionist (930834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352113)

There is a nasty bug in Linux that makes the computer reboot every 49.7 days. The worst part is that this bug has been around for more than 10 years...

I guess most people don't realize this because they need to recompile their kernel every other week, or they use Linux only to boot into illegal copies of Windows.

Are you stoned or stupid? (1, Informative)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352323)

Or are you just making this up? Even clear back to the 1.0.25 kernel, I can recall seeing uptimes in excess of 200 days. If some specific Linux distro ever had such a bug, it was almost certainly short-lived.

Wait a minute . . . that was a Windows bug - Win95, Win98 and (IIRC) NT4.0SP2. Boot yer box and let it do nothing, some kernel pointer associated with timekeeping would overflow at 49.7 days. Hellfire, MicroSoft squashed that one years ago!

So the only question that's left is: are you a Luddite or a Fudite?

Re:Are you stoned or stupid? (0, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352459)

For all your clever wittiness, you're a complete fucking moron, aren't you?

Re:Are you stoned or stupid? (1)

CRiMSON (3495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352805)

He's neither.. he's trolling and you fell for it. Who's stupid now?

Re:Are you stoned or stupid? (1)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353451)

There was at one time a Linux bug where the uptime counter would roll over somewhere in the over-one-year range, IIRC. But the box didn't reboot - it just showed a shorter uptime than accurate...

Re:Are you stoned or stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353481)

There was a bug in the scsi driver back in rhat 4 where the machine would crash after
something like 495 days. This bit me twice on the same machine since I didn't bother
to update after the first crash. This was back in the mid to late 90s.

Slashdotted. (1)

LazloToth (623604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352121)

/. Kills.

Torrent... (1)

jerpyro (926071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352229)

I wish they'd have done a torrent. I've been trying to download it for three hours and it keeps dropping.
 

Do something different. (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352829)

  • Open a terminal.
    • Log in to RHN.
      • Use Copy Link Location.use the WGET command and paste the url.

      But Don't Download from their web page, it only allow two ISO downloads at a time, it will disconnect you, and it's SLOW.

Re:Do something different. (1)

jerpyro (926071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353447)

Nice, I didn't see that the session ids were in the URL string.

But it's still the same location as the website (being https) so is there a faster way to get it?

~Jer

CentOS... (3, Insightful)

Ron Harwood (136613) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352247)

So, start the timer... how long until CentOS 5.0 rolls out based on the RHEL SRPMS?

Re:CentOS... (2, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352349)

CentOS 5 beta is out. If past performance is any indicator, final should be done in about 2 weeks. Unless something goes wrong of course.

Screenshots aplenty? (1)

starseeker (141897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352259)

I have a bad feeling about this... that poor server.

And amusingly enough, the image text for passing this through is IMMINENT. No kidding...

Re:Screenshots aplenty? (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352647)

Don't worry, the server is running RHEL with XGL! It has PLENTY of free resources to serve up all those screenshots.

XGL? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352267)

Now, I don't see any reason not to have XGL on the desktop - in fact it's a huge boon. But is it actually necessary on a server? Or more to the point, isn't it a horribly bad idea on a server? You should be running as little as possible on any critical machine... And if you have so many windows open on your server that you need a 3D desktop to manage them, perhaps you should be running all that shit somewhere else. And if you're using RHEL for a desktop system, for any reason other than being able to test things before deployment, you should have your head examined.

Re:XGL? (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352345)

There is a RHEL5 Client OS for Workstations and Desktop productivity. This is separate from the RHEL 5 Base Server and Advanced Servers.

Re:XGL? (1)

Ron Harwood (136613) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352361)

RHEL isn't just for servers...

Re:XGL? (2, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352365)

Red Hat Enterprise also has a "Workstation" flavor. They are not all Server centric OSes. For one, I don't see many people using Red Hat as a workstation, but then again, my company left them for Novell SUSE a year ago. We are happy in the change.

Re:XGL? (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353043)

But who's actually foolish enough to use RHEL for a desktop OS? What's the benefit, support? You can get support for less retarded distributions (those, for example, which eschew rpm.) Unless you're getting the licenses for free, using RHEL on your desktops is a huge mistake.

Can we curb the flaming and OS bigotry? (5, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353495)

> But who's actually foolish enough to use RHEL for a desktop OS?

Anyone who needs a SUPPORTED system, say anyone deploying in Corporate America. Anyone who wants to run a commercial application. Remember, Free/Open hasn't conquered the world yet. World Domination IS coming... but it is just taking a little longer than some of us had hoped.

> You can get support for less retarded distributions (those, for example, which eschew rpm.)

You see folks, this is why Debian hasn't taken over, the OS is just fine; but the users/fanboys seem to be Team Amiga rejects. This package format flaming is just so 20th Century, these days there really isn't any practical advantage between them since .deb packages finally gained support for gpg signing and the rpm world got higher level package management sorted out by giving a choice of either apt-get OR yum/pup/etc.

> Unless you're getting the licenses for free, using RHEL on your desktops is a huge mistake.

Unless you are setting up an Animation studio and your preferred app is supported on RHEL. Or you are rolling out a CRM solution that is supported on RHEL. Or you are developing an application you intend to deploy on RHEL. Etc. Or in other words, if the desktops are making you money and you need supported software you should evaluate the cost/benefit of buying a RHEL support contract, exactly like any other product a vendor offers you.

But if you are a student living in mom's basement, you are quite correct that RHEL isn't for you. Keep right on with the server in the corner running Sid and your desktop on Gentoo.

Re:Can we curb the flaming and OS bigotry? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353811)

Holy crap....

Hello, Pot? I'd like you to meet kettle.

Can I get an Emacs vs. vi?

Red Hat Deskop Makes Perfect Sense (1)

d3xt3r (527989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353517)

If you work with Red Hat Linux servers, it makes perfect sense to run Red Hat on the desktop. For instance, people want to develop applications on your desktop, create RPMS, or simply run a set of desktops that can be managed remotely via Red Hat Network.

Your are correct that there are other offerings for a home or casual Linux user. However, for people working in shops using RHEL servers, RHEL desktop makes perfect sense.

Let's look at it this way . . . (5, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352483)

If it's a server, your default init state should be runlevel 3, right? Doesn't matter if you've installed all the XGL stuff in the world if it never gets run (for the most part; carrying unnecessary executables/packages/services around on your system does potentially open vulnerabilities in your system).

You should never take a server to runlevel 5 unless it's been taken out of service for maintenance - and not even then! Just because a GUI may make you able to more quickly or more simply maintain your server doesn't mean that it's okay to run X on a server. GUI's tend to "dumb down" user tasks (that is their function, after all). GUI's have progressed over the last decade, but they still carry their penalties in system load, "dumb-down" factor and increased vulnerability to exploitation.

As for using RHEL as a desktop, I agree wholeheartedly. Everyone knows that Gnome under OpenSuSE 10.2 is the ultimate XGL desktop experience!

Re:XGL? (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352979)

> And if you're using RHEL for a desktop system, for any
> reason other than being able to test things before deployment,
> you should have your head examined.

Actually there are few more reasons to use RHEL (or maybe deriatives like CentOS) on workstations.

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/ [redhat.com]

Re:XGL? (2)

cheftw (996831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353095)

I think if you expect to get away with posting on /. while not knowing what you're talking about you need your head examined. XGL != 3D, compiz and beryl (what you're probably thinking of) are WMs which do 3d effects but they aren't compulsory. Just using desktop compositon will actually reduce your CPU load. K?

Re:XGL? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353493)

XGL != 3D, compiz and beryl

Indeed. In fact, if you have an nVidia card, you're better off without XGL -- they implement the compositing stuff directly. And if you have an Intel card, you should probably be using AIGLX.

Just using desktop compositon will actually reduce your CPU load.

Maybe, but I kind of doubt it with XGL -- XGL means running a whole second X server. And, at the very least, you're going to end up with more RAM usage, using ANY compositing manager -- probably a fair trade for most people, but it's still something to think about.

I don't think this is a wholly bad thing, so long as it's optional. Just keep in mind, there are pros and cons to this. K?

Re:XGL? (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353529)

Well, they _did_ get away with it. The funny this is that RHEL likely doesn't include XGL at all, it's very likely that they use AIGLX instead, but it's not worth it for me to check. As much as they would be doing it because they originated AIGLX, it's also a better solution than XGL.

Re:XGL? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353175)

Many worstations use RHEL because most proprietary apps will only target it and or SuSE enterprise. Also companies like Dell will only support their workstations if they run RHEL. Obviously mute if you only run free software and firefox.

Re:XGL? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353289)

s/mute/moot/ but besides that, my point is that most workstations don't even have proprietary apps on them. If you need it, fine, run it. But most people don't. Obviously there is always that one person, or that one company, that will need to use it.

Re:XGL? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353331)

But is it actually necessary on a server?

Yes, and for one basic reason: admins, even hyper-enlightened Linux admins, want homogeneity. They want the *same* sytstem on all boxes. If they run Redhat on their desktop, then they're going to demand it on their server. In this they are no different from lusers and suits.

Rationally, servers should be running OpenBSD, Debian, Slackware, Solaris, etc. But they end up running Redhat, Fedora, SuSE, Kubuntu, etc, on their servers instead, because that's what they run on their desktops.

Re:XGL? (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353483)

They have AIGXL. AIGXL is preferred to XGL these days, because people thinks it's much easier to build the future 3d desktops starting with aixgl today.

Re:XGL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353565)

It does not add any appreciable overhead and keeps all the systems the same. If you like the effects on your desktop, why not on any other systems you modify?

First, don't configure your server to boot to X. When you're not logged in -- no overhead.

Second, even if you leave a desktop logged in w/ all kinds of fancy graphics libraries, they'll be paged out -- no overhead. (Don't bother counting bytes in the paging tables -- if you are that stretched, you've got other problems.)

Finally, on a machine that is just at the limit, wouldn't you be using SSH or a local terminal anyway?

Any reason to switch? (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352297)

I used Redhat back in the day, just before I became a die hard Debian user. I'm wondering what exactly should drive me to want to switch to Redhat at this point? They seem very fractured to me and the whole "Enterprise" setup with a "free version where we develop everything" or whatever doesn't strike me as very appealing.

But I'll grant, I'm somewhat ignorant of the whole Redhat thing these days. Anything I should be enthralled by and jump into Redhat for? Not trying to bait or troll. Would seriously love to hear what people with more recent experience of RH have to say (especially if they're also familiar with Debian and others so they know where I'm coming from).

Re:Any reason to switch? (5, Informative)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352677)

Things are different these days. The main thing you get from being a paying customer of Red Hat is long-term stability (i.e., packages stay relatively the same for years, aside from bugfixes), patch rollout, and support from both Red Hat and other vendors. You're probably not in their ideal audience anymore, since general users who want a good free desktop were pointed to Fedora when that project was created from RH9 a few years ago. Now the company's audience consists almost exclusively of corporate types who want support from Red Hat, or who run software that is certified to run on Red Hat but is not guaranteed to work on much else (such as Oracle). Your distro of choice, righteous though it may be, wouldn't suit that audience very well because if there were problems, there would be no one to blame.

Re:Any reason to switch? (1)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352681)

There is no reason to switch to RHEL unless you have an enterprise to run. It is a very conservative distro (as in not includng cutting edge stuff). It has to be, since stability is what you get and pay for.

Re:Any reason to switch? (4, Informative)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352697)

Well, RedHat's business model is centered around providing support for a version of the Linux operating system and its programs. Businesses don't want to deal with a large cloud of people anywhere and everywhere in the world when it comes to requesting improvements, fixes, etc. They want to go to one place and point a finger and say, "You! Fix this!" That's what RedHat, Inc., is. The people you point the finger at. They build, package, and distribute a specific version of Linux and its programs and utilities. They make them work together. They provide security and bug fixes.

You can argue which distro is better until the cows come home. But when it comes to a corporate adoption, you'll need a RedHat, SuSE, or some other company like that to provide the target for finger pointing.

Re:Any reason to switch? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352767)

Well, the 'free version where we develop everything' is sortof like Debian Testing, except that things that go in there don't necessarily make it into the absolutely-stable RHEL offering. Another reason to go RedHat is that they are major contributors to the kernel.

I think that's about it though, You do pay for RH support, but the kind of people who buy it are the ones who want that, and (apparently) get good support too. If you don't need it, then there's not much point in going RH. Maybe you'd be better off with Centos, in which case you have something very comparable with Debian, with the 'non-free' packages added.

The other good reason is the security backporting. RH is excellent at keeping a stable system going, which is one reason they keep a the same kernel the release shipped with and only add security fixes to it, instead of releasing newer kernels. That kind of 'it will not break' attitude makes a lot of sense to the people who run it.

So should you switch? why would you want to if you're happy with what you've got. If you're not happy though... try Centos when it comes out.

Re:Any reason to switch? (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352873)

yeah, we have that production server & desktop vs. "free/bleeding edge/risky where we develop everything" version in the Ubuntu world, too

we call that one Debian

Re:Any reason to switch? (1)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353055)

Freaking Easy.

I just downloaded Centos 4.4 [centos.org] and just fell in love. I like debian, but RedHat really has a nice polished product here.

PS - Just in case, Centos 4.4 is the same as RedHat ES 4.4, just recompiled from sources.

Re:Any reason to switch? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353217)

IF your employer uses Oracle it maybe worth the switch. They no longer support Debian.

ALso if you run servers that can not go down it maybe nice to have RHES running as its supported by software vendors and OEM's.

Re:Any reason to switch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353509)

We use RedHat on all servers. We like the support that we get and our corporation gets peace of mind that if there is a problem, there is a neck to choke. Not mine though. :-0

Red Hat rubs be the wrong way... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352385)

"RHEL used to come in four main strands: ES, AS, WS and Desktop, although the Desktop product was sold as a pack of ten clients along with a copy of RHEL ES, the server version. With RHEL 5, Red Hat has swept all of that away in favour of a simpler structure. Instead of distributing the four sets independently, Red Hat will provide only two main sets, referred to as Server and Client. Subscribers are issued with installation keys that pre-define package manifests depending on the subscription level."

There is something about a Linux distributor telling me that I am limited as to how many clients I can install based on how much money I pay that just rubs be the wrong way. How can they do this and not go afoul of the GPL?

I have not used Red Hat for a number of years. Do they even have a free as in beer download of their client? If I pay am I not allowed to distribute the GPL'd product as I see fit?? Do they prevent redistribution by bundling in non-GPL stuff?

Like I said, it has been years since I used Red Hat so I really don't know what they're like now.

Re:Red Hat rubs be the wrong way... (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353025)

Usualy for things like that (and I didn't check, and don't quote me), is fairly simple. When you pay redhat, what you're most likely buying is the support, not the product. So if you install more client than you paid for, and you called redhat and they somehow knew about it, you're sorry out of luck.

That quite the abstraction of how it works, but you get the idea.

Re:Red Hat rubs be the wrong way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353105)

no, they put some copyright stuff in there too, the things that Centos removes when rebuilding. Things like artwork and a few management packages.

Re:Red Hat rubs be the wrong way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353367)

They restrict redistribution of their trademarked images/artwork. The code is Free and you are welcome to download it(i.e. CentOS and Oracle Linux). What you pay for is not the software, it is for support and the name.

Re:Red Hat rubs be the wrong way... (4, Informative)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353497)

There is something about a Linux distributor telling me that I am limited as to how many clients I can install based on how much money I pay that just rubs be the wrong way. How can they do this and not go afoul of the GPL?

There is no limit on downloading the source. When you buy RHEL, you buy the *binaries* and you buy support. The GPL explicitly allows charging for binaries. You are even allowed to charge "reasonable" media fees for source, but Red Hat very kindly makes the source free as in beer. You can compile the source yourself, or let http://centos.org/ [centos.org] do it for you.

The GPL is about *freedom*, not price. RHEL gives you full freedom. And while you can't get official RHEL binaries for free, derivatives based on the source are available that are free as in beer.

While an individual or small business has little reason to buy RHEL, an enterprise has good reasons. You get a highly stable platform with security patches for a long period of time. You get support. You get someone to blame when things go wrong. As an individual, you might want to try Centos and get familiar with it. You never know when you might want to work for an enterprise that uses RHEL. As a small business, you can start out with Centos, and if your business takes off, scale right up to RHEL with minimal hassle.

Screenshots, who cares? (4, Interesting)

jfroot (455025) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352423)

I always wondered why these articles focus on screenshots. I would assume most people who are running RHEL don't ever use any graphical interface at all. Servers don't need to run any graphical applications really and it is a waste of system resources to have any of that left on IMHO.

First thing I do to a shiny new Redhat install is:

perl -i -p -e s/id\:6\:in/id\:3\:in/ /etc/inittab

To disable X11 completely. You should to.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352577)

That's a pretty obscure command. There's no simpler way to not boot X11? I've never run RH.

Yay for linux' ease of use.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352981)

The above command, in English, is "replace one specific character in the file /etc/inittab" which will disable the typical runlevel that uses X11.

While anyone COULD let it boot up into a bloated graphical environment and perform the task in something like Notepad, the whole point of the task is to disable the use of bloated graphical environments.

Furthermore, while the above could be done in about as many keystrokes using a lightweight interactive editor like vi, if the guy is doing so many installs that he knows what he's got to do "first" on each one, then he likely has added this command to a long list of site-specific customizations to suit his particular requirements. It's not like he types this 500 times in a day, and repeats every 6 months.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (2, Informative)

Rheingold (2741) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353713)

If you're doing that many installs, you should be using kickstart anyway, in which case you can skip X configuration with 'skipx' or if configuring X, do not include the '--startxonboot' option.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (2, Informative)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353215)

1) the command actually is wrong. It should be
perl -i -p -e s/id\:5\:in/id\:3\:in/ /etc/inittab
Just a minor typo, as written, would miss the current default and wouldnt do anything at all to your files.

That's a pretty obscure command. There's no simpler way to not boot X11? I've never run RH.


2) unfortunately no. This is where xdm is spawned, by init, as directed by /etc/inittab. It actually makes more sense when you edit by hand. What you're really doing is switching the default runlevel, from 5 (not 6 as GP post) to 3. xdm is spawned in runlevel 5.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353803)

Yeah, of course. When doing the install, just tell it not to do so. Or edit /etc/inittab with an editor.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (4, Funny)

daves (23318) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352725)

perl -i -p -e s/id\:6\:in/id\:3\:in/ /etc/inittab

You really should install vim. It doesn't take that much room.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353151)

meh, you can do that in ed -- the UNIX editor. feh, who needs fancy screen oriented editors, I'll take my line editor anyday.

There's got to be a simpler way . . . (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352735)

For example, select a default runlevel of "3" when installing the server.

Or use the System Administration Tool (YaST?) to explicitly set a default runlevel of 3.

Or edit /etc/inittab and change the default runlevel to 3.

Other solutions (and I can think of two right off the top of my head) are left as an exercise for the reader.

Re:There's got to be a simpler way . . . (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353155)

I just checked my centos server - default runlevel of 3 in inittab already.
I guess if you install the 'server' option (or the 'nothing, I'll pick my own packages' option) then you get default runlevel of 3.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352857)

Most people != all people. It appears that you're slightly backward, so I'll explain again: not everyone is the same as you. Many people use RHEL desktops and workstations in businesses. Even server admins like to set up machines by the GUI, then kill X and let it run.

Please learn a basic grasp of real-world computing before you post again, instead of mouthing off like a drooling moron.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353261)

"perl -i -p -e s/id\:6\:in/id\:3\:in/ /etc/inittab"

I was thinking of writing a program in perl a few days ago for a pet project but your post makes me think that is a bad idea. Shudder

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (1)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353419)

Yes, because I want to make an oracle 10g install harder by turning off X.... never mind that some enterprise software does use X. Not everyone runs a server with just apache and qmail. Granted, I use SSH/bash most of the time, but there are apps on some of the servers that I use that require X.

Re:Screenshots, who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353465)

Don't assume. At the medical school I work for, IT has us set up with RHEL for all our desktops.

Na naaaa, na na na na na naaaa.... (4, Funny)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352465)

Okay, someone look at the official announcement... er, official "thank you" page [redhat.com] for RHEL 5, and watch the embedded video.

Then tell me someone at Red Hat hasn't been playing too much Katamari Damacy.

KDE support? (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352715)

One major question for me is: What is the state of KDE support in RHEL5? Redhat has always shown a preference to gnome over kde, but nevertheless included KDE as an option in RHEL4. Do they still?

Re:KDE support? (1)

CRiMSON (3495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352833)

In the time it took you to ask your question you could of found the answer.

Re:KDE support? (1)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353065)

In the time it took you to ask your question you could of found the answer.

Could HAVE. Could HAVE.

Normally, I would never post something like this, but if you're going to reply with a snarky, condescending remark, you'd better take the time to check your spelling and grammar.

Re:KDE support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352843)

Yes - you can see KDE in one of the Xen screenshots.

Re:KDE support? (1)

knarfling (735361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353319)

Yes, RHEL5 does come with KDE version 3.5.4. Since the official stable version on kde.org is 3.5.6, it looks like RHEL5 is only a little bit behind the cutting edge on this one.

I also noticed that it comes with 2113 packages compared to 1570 with RHEL4 update 4. A good portion of them are probably language packages, but it does look like RHEL5 is increasing the number of packages that it supports.

*NOT* XGL! (5, Informative)

r_cerq (650776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18352907)

RHEL (like Fedora) does NOT include or support XGL. They support AIGLX, another accelerated desktop mechanism. They do support and ship compiz (the Window Manager that does the cube thingy), though. (compiz works on both AIGLX and XGL)

Re:*NOT* XGL! (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353819)

I'll direct everyone to the Wikipedia page.

Short comparison: XGL is an X server implemented in OpenGL, which currently means (at least on Linux) that it must be run on top of a traditional X server. You cannot run accelerated OpenGL apps on top of XGL -- you would have to find a way to run them inside the "real" X server, and they could not be composited. Since ATI has done nothing to support the compositing extensions, modern ATI cards require XGL to do any sort of compositing.

AIGLX is a way to allow a window manager running under the "real" X server to implement compositing stuff. I don't know what's supported, but I imagine it's similar to nVidia, which I'll describe below. It would generally be supported if you have a fully open source stack -- so, the Intel cards, for example.

nVidia implements the main things that AIGLX implements, but without actually using AIGLX to do it. While you can run XGL on an nVidia or Intel card, there's no point. This is what I'm running right now. It seems to support doing just about anything you want to any window, including actual OpenGL-accelerated windows -- I can drag World of Warcraft around and watch it warp out of control. Beryl can automatically disable the indirect rendering on fullscreen windows, meaning fullscreen games run pretty much at the speed they do without any compositing. I've also heard that the SVN version (which I can't get to run properly, myself) is capable of disabling indirection on any given window, meaning you can composite everything except your windowed OpenGL game.

With my nVidia, the only windows which cannot be warped any way I like are XvMC windows, but normal xv windows are fine. (You only use XvMC if you're deliberately doing hardware mpeg2 decoding -- and you would know if you are.)

And it does make sense that they would ship compiz, though I do wonder where this is going. Beryl is a fork of compiz, but Beryl is GPL'd and compiz is not, so code from compiz can go into Beryl, but not vice versa. Beryl tends to have more features, and compiz tends to be more stable and better written, but that's overly generalizing and may have changed.

What about Fedora (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18352975)

Well, now that we the Fedora legacy users have been left alone in the cold, and even though I know this is just a Redhat Enterprise post, let me throw this out:

How easy is switching from one of the "legacy" Fedora editions (4,5) to the latest Redhat Enterprise or CentOS? Anyone has switched already?

I wonder if all the packages and their configurations would be upgraded correctly. I have been using Redhat/Fedora for quite a while, and never got any major problems.

'Switch to Debian/Ubuntu/other' is not accepted as an valid answer :)

One-Page SLA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18353535)

I can't see how the supposed One-Page SLA could ever work in real life: where's the response times, where's the priorities, etc, all sorts of basic things people how sign SLAs first ask about?

http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/images/rhel5/rhat-sla .png [linuxformat.co.uk]

XGL != AIXGL (1)

laclasse2 (1075805) | more than 7 years ago | (#18353537)

XGl was first a closed source technology developed by Novell. It was then open sourced, but even if for all people out there, it does 'the 3d cube', the inner details are different. AIXGL is completely opensourced from the start, and fully integrated into Xorg 7.1 where Xgl was a complete rewrite of the X server which was _then_ open sourced. AIXGL is what is shipped in RHEL 5. not Xgl. Get the facts right.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?