[NTLUG:Discuss] RE: Lost boot Loader -- if you understand Fedora, you can get major contracts

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Wed, 2004-11-03 at 22:56, Paul Ingendorf wrote:
> I hope the fedora install cd works for you from my experience it should work
> a lot better than trying to make a square peg fit in the round hole.

Anaconda is anaconda.  The final beta Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2) was nearly
released as basically the Red Hat Linux 10 (CL3.2) beta less than a
month earlier.  The proof is in the disttags.  ;->

> I know I should be eating my shorts or crow when I say this but fedora has
> come a long way and they seem to be more of a helping hand to the linux
> community than I ever thought they would and redhat has not exploited them
> like I originally thought they would.

Little has actually changed but the names.

The "original" Fedora Project (Fedora.US at the University of Hawaii)
released 3rd party RPMs for Red Hat Linux.  Now in the Red Hat Fedora
era, they are Fedora Extras (with any "legally troublesome" packages
moved to Livna.ORG).

Those at Red Hat who were paid to work on Red Hat Linux and Enterprise
Linux simply now work on Fedora Core and Enterprise Linux.  The lists
for the former are now public.  And the tags changed to separate Fedora
Core from Enterprise Linux:
- "Rawhide" is now "Development" (although Red Hat people still call it
Rawhide on the opened lists ;-)
- "Beta" is now "Test" (again, some Red Hat people regularly forget)

The only thing that changes from RHL to FC is the support option, Red
Hat no longer offers installation support for RHL, or paid downloads for
updates to RHL.  What most people don't realize is that Red Hat _never_
offered Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or other support plans for RHL
(except for 6.2E**), and APT/YUM _still_ pull from Red Hat servers for
Fedora.  You just no longer get to pay for them.  ;-ppp

[ **NOTE:  Red Hat Linux 6.2E was Red Hat's failed experiment to sell
SLAs for their single distro.  Most of their enterprise clients
preferred the "Enterprise" product that SuSE introduced, so Red Hat
followed SuSE's suit. ]

Now let's talk about updates.  A lot of people who don't use Fedora have
been complaining about lack of updates.  Well, almost 15 months before
Fedora was announced, Red Hat state they were only going to provide
updates for 1 year on RHL.  Red Hat _never_ made good on this promise,
and they _still_ support updates on versions as old as RHL 7.3 today!

Why?  Because they got sick and tired of supporting 6+ revisions
simultaneously, and I don't blame them.  Red Hat should not have to
support people who won't update to the last ".2" or ".3" revision -- and
lots of companies were "standardizing" on a ".1" release.  Red Hat's
attitude was, "if you want updates for a version that is 1 or 2 back,
you need to update to the last revision, otherwise you need to pay us."

I don't blame them, and I believe the "Legacy" tag is working most
excellent in Fedora Legacy.  There are no updates for Red Hat Linux 8.0
(CL3.0), or Red Hat Linux 7.0-7.2 (CL2.0-2.2), but there are for Red Hat
Linux 7.3 (CL2.3) and Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2) -- the last "revisions" in
prior, "Legacy" versions.  [ NOTE:  There are still legacy updates for
Red Hat Linux 9 (CL3.1), but I suspect they will be cut soon. ]

And why does Red Hat still provide legacy updates for Red Hat Linux 7.3
today?  Because Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 (EL2), which is based on
Red Hat Linux 7.x (CL2), is still being commercially supported.  So any
updates for Red Hat Linux 7.3 benefit Enterprise Linux 2.1.  For those
that haven't noticed, unless RHEL has a package with "EL" in the
version, it is _verbatim_ from Red Hat Linux / Fedora Core (and even the
rare "EL" packages are typically subsets of the RHL/FC ones, removing
various locale and unsupported functionality -- that's _straight_ from
Red Hat's own docs).

I wrote a page specifically for this if you need further discussion/
history:  
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-4.html  

> I guess it just goes to show you that good people with strong convictions
> can surprise even their biggest critics.

Or the obviousness of the truth escapes the IT media on a regular basis.

Fedora Core is developed largely by Red Hat employees as their _paid_
function, just like they did with Red Hat Linux before it.  That's
because their development of Fedora Core, like Red Hat Linux before it,
is part of their normal development of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.  Nearly
_every_single_ package in the latter has the _exact_version_ as in the
former.

Fedora Core is no less "stable" than Red Hat Linux before it.  As Red
Hat says, "it's a return to our roots."  Translation:  "Since Red Hat
Linux is no longer a product, the 'suits' don't have a problem with us
including the _exact_ same functionality as Red Hat Enterprise Linux." 
That was an increasing problem in Red Hat Linux 8.0 and even some in 9
(things getting "left out" versus RHEL).  They suddenly "returned" once
Red Hat Linux 10 was renamed Fedora Core 1.  ;->

Anyone who has been around Fedora knows this.  The most obvious detail
is that Red Hat developers still call Fedora Core "Development" as
"Rawhide."  And the same packages are released for both FC as RHEL. 
Hence why distributions like White Box Enterprise Linux are
self-defeating, because you can build a verbatim box with Fedora Core,
without all the trademark issues, but more locale and other support
(with the exception that the EL kernels do include "high-end" drivers
like 8-way and other considerations -- but they also run on Fedora Core
;-).

In other words, if you want the equivalent to Red Hat Enterprise Linux
2.1, you run the latest version of CL2, Red Hat Linux 7.3 (CL2.3).

If you want the equivalent of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, you run the
latest version of CL3, Fedora Core 1 (CL3.2).

If you want the equivalent of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 (currently in
beta now? or still internal-only alpha?), you will run the latest
version of CL4, currently Fedora Core 3 (CL4.1) which is now Test 3.

And this is not me saying this, but _major_ financial institutions as
well.  During the selection process of several over the last few months
for work, I don't know how many times I've heard from architects and
leads that say, "finally, someone who understand Fedora!"  I guess they
are used to the IT media and other candidates who don't.  ;->

It should also be noted that APT/YUM is not only the community
distribution model for Fedora Core, but Red Hat Enterprise Linux too. 
Sites have been put up for those who have let their RHEL subscriptions
expire so they can pull updates from elsewhere.  And UP2DATE can do
APT/YUM natively now, so you can even pull packages from Fedora Extras
and other repositories for RHEL systems, while resolving any
dependencies in RHEL against the RHN (if you have an active
subscription).

Red Hat did good, damn good, while solving their trademark crisis at the
same time.  No commercial vendor will ever offer what Red Hat did in the
future, a 100% redistributable distro with their trademark.  It became
so widely proliferated that many people thought companies like Sun had
licensed it, when they had _not_, because Sun wasn't even bothering to
change the trademark in their releases.  And when Red Hat barked about
this, they were greeted to Sun and other companies taking it to the
USPTO to declare "Red Hat" as public domain, because it has been so
widely and freely proliferated without enforcement by Red Hat.

And the rest was demonization of Red Hat that still continues.  No good
deed goes unpunished I guess.  But Fedora is the combined technical,
legal and political result, and a damn good one.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                  b.j.smith at ieee.org 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
"Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community
 have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted
 in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik