13 posts • joined Saturday 26th March 2011 14:41 GMT
Re: Oracle's RHEL update service?
Oracle is probably a RedHat linux customer with one and only one license. Therefore, in every religious manner, they are stealing RedHats livelihood. Despicable is what Oracle actions are.
Oracle stealing from RedHat
Oracle is a Red Hat customer, but wants to provide patches to Red Hat Linux. RedHat linux patches are for supporting Red Hat products.
What Ellison is doing is stealing and whoring. In all fairness, RedHat and others should promote SQL software in direct competition to Oracle, and should also provide Oracle patches, at a substantial lower price than that originating from Oracle itself.
If you steal a persons food, you are despicable. Anyone who stays with Oracle contributes to an immoral company
Re: I don't get it
RedHat is the mother distribution, Fedora is the daughter. Fedora is to RedHat and what Rawhide is to Fedora.
A bank cannot afford to Linux crash ever. So yes, better automated testing should be the way. We in the field are the atomatons.
Re: Fedora should go to 9-monthly schedules
You are right that Fedora should go for 9 monthly schedules. Alternatively,. if Fedora had more developer and Q/A resources, they would be able to stick to six monthly cycles.
When you go to 9 month release cycles, there is a tendancy to overload the next cycle with too many new things. In fact, smaller steps of 3 months, with fewer new things might be better. Then there are the ones who say, continuous improvements are best (Debian style).
I think that Fedora takes on too many new features in the 6 month schedule, thus giving credance to your suggestion.
It may very well be that Fedora was late in starting to look at secure boot. Perhaps they should have started one year ago, and not just after Fedora 17. If Secure boot is a success, other distributions will share the code and follow suite. Yes, we have a delay. By the way, I have installed F18 on a clean disk, and for the most part it works just fine. I really find that the applications work as well as ever. It is delayed because of secure boot , the problems with the logon interface and security checking (sudo, logon after timeout and lock, etc.)
Re: I'll give them credit.
Fedora is the test bed for a whole series of ports of the RedHat distribution. Even Oracle takes from RedHat, and then undercuts RedHat in attempts to hurt RH. That is, Oracle steals from it's mother.
As far as interfaces is concerned. In the first month of use, I went from disliking Gnome3 to getting more familiar with it, and looking for the good stuff in it. I am now certain that Gnome3 and Unity are going to persist, while KDE will come in a close third. Other gui interfaces such as xfce will also be next to KDE.
I use both Ubuntu and Fedora, and really, can't choose between them for superiority. So, give credit for being able to download free Linux Distributions. How much less cost than that can you have?
Ubuntu is now realizing that you need a revenue to be able to continue to provide a free distribution. In this regard, they are building in interfaces to the Ubuntu Store, to Amazon, etc. This should not detract from the excellent distribution that it is. Fedora serves as the test bed for RedHat.
By the way, both distributions are looking to China, where a billion people will result in many many adopters of either. China also has it's local distributions, and we should look to see some of them made available in English.
Yes, Canonical is jealous of RedHat.
I run 4 distributions on my desktop computer. Two of them are Fedora (32bit and 64bit), and two of them are Ubuntu (32 and 64bit). I also have windows.
When installing any version of UBUNTU, the installer will never build a grub.cfg that includes Fedora, or Centos.
I wondered if this is a bug, but now that I read the opening comments about Canonical, I realize it was intentional.
After installing Ubuntu, I run grub-mkconfig >/tmp/grub.cfg. I checked this grub.cfg out and it was complete. It included RedHat versions as well.
Fedora, Centos, Red Hat derivitaves developers don't lose any sleep about this.
Gnome3 and KDE
For a while after starting with Fedora 16 and Gnome 3 (I am currently testing Fedora 18), I got disillusioned with Gnome3. I started with KDE, and slowly got accustomed to it. KDE is very nice if you have a powerful system, as the underlying architecture is based on QT, the object oriented graphical interface.
My reticence to standardize on KDE (I use Fedora 17), was that some software updates were better done via Gnome. I also felt that it took a lot of cpu cycles after a logon, before I could do some coding.
I will return to KDE with Fedora 19, to spend two days per week with KDE, two days with Ubuntu and Unity, and three days per week with Gnome.
I write software and do testing with 32 bit and 64 bit systems. The two that I use mainly are debian based and RedHat based, My software has to work with all distributions.
I read today, that Torvalds has started to use KDE after some months with the xfce or other distribution.
It does not mean that Gnome is not a winner, but it means that Torvalds tastes at this time are for KDE:
Let me close with an analogy. I like to drive a Mercedes, and after the Mercedes, my other preference is a Nexus. Which do I like better?. It depends on the amount of gas in the tank. I enjoy riding in both.
Equate your Gnome GUI interface with Mercedes, and KDE with the other. Both allow you to get to where you want to go.
Gnome 3 is maligned. Gnome3 is a new interface that has great potential
The Gnome2 interface is a keyboard mouse only interface. It was developed as a follow up from a Teletype interface. With the first few days of Gnome3, the menu interface was the one I did not want to abandon, because it was so familiar.
If you are coming from a Microsoft environment W7 or before, you know all about start menus etc. Gnome 2 kept me happy that way.
However, I have noted that some users collect several hundred applications on their desktop. And the things I hear out-loud are "Where did I save that xxxx application", or "what was that application name?"
Unity and Gnome started out together. I guess some staffing problems, Q/A problems and delivery delays resulted in Unity going it's way. And when it did it started a "my interface is better than yours" arguments.
Torvalds, like me, was so familiar with Gnome2 that to change and learn a new better paradigm became something he did not want to do.
But gradually, I realized that I could have a favourites bar, with our most used applications, and use the facilities in Gnome3 or Unity to present a list of applications matching some partial phrase I enter on the keyboard. (More than likely, in a later release, we will be able to speak the phrase and get to our program.)
So, the learning consists of a) With Gnome2, threaded a menu as my old standby How do I do it with Gnome 3.6?
After about 3 months of Gnome3.x I returned to Gnome2 and was uncomfortable with it. It seemed so amateurish. I even tried the halfway distribution "Mint", so see if cinnamon or Mate would pull me to Mint.
Gnome3.6 is very stable. It is as stable as Unity, or Unity is as stable as Gnome 3.x and between the two, I find one not better than the other.
There is a Gnome 3.x website where you can find tweaks. These will allow you some most amazing additional functionality.
What fails for me for both Gnome and Unity, is the ability for me to select an arbitrary folder, and have it's representation on the favourites bar. (A shortcut, in MS terms). With that shortcut, one click on the folder repeseenation should take me directly to that folder without all the extra keystrokes. I also started using the virtual desktop. (The tabs that are half out of view on the right side of the screen. The virtual tab is the alternative I use for that functionality right now.
Let me wind up with this. Egos are very high in the IT world. Some people feel they have exclusivity on intelligence or design, and when they find out that they don't or they have to compromise, or no longer like the challenges, they leave for other opportunities. Many times it is money that causes a career change.
With the staff losses, Gnome3 has to recruit and train replacements. This takes time, and a desire for the new people to gain a mindset. Gnome3 does have a development plan, which was posted several months ago. The author of this blog should do a search for it and confirm that Gnome has direction, is not floundering and that Gnome has a charter of where it wants to go in the next short while.
I like it, I find it robust, and easily configurable. My software development is with Qt4.8 and I am told that KDE is written with Qt as the GUI interface.
I like an interface that I can mold to my habits. I don't enjoy interfaces that are not malleable.
I left UBUNTU and have no regrets
My two distros (Fedora and Linux Mint) give me what I need. I develop software and have 32 bit systems of each, and 64 bit systems of each. You would be surprised that you need to test with both platforms.
UBUNTU Unity is fine for wide screen displays. It gets out of the way. However when one needs two windows open concurrently, it does not work well.
As a developer, the LTS version is superior to Unity, as I can have multiple large windows on the display.
I find however, the Fedora 16 is better suited to developers and users. Mint 12 locks up too frequently as I switch from terminal mode to GUI interface.
UBUNTU will leave the desktop
For you UBUNTU Users, consider that the Linux future is with the Android and similar Linux distributions. And since UBUNTU's deep pockets have limits, there is a decision to stop this KBUNTU or Other Desktop investment where there are insufficient returns and look to cover expenses. Even a millionaire has limits on expenses that do not bear results.
Counting the mouseclicks
The Unity interface is subconciously geared to one activity at a time. To have more than one and to switch between takes too many keystrokes. Also, when users have a wide screen, (such as 1920 x 1080), we would like to freeze the right half with some static information, and work with the left half, or viceversa. I did not see that in Unity's future.
Too many mouseclicks to switch from virtual desktop to another, or establish a virtual desktop.
I actually reverted to the 10.4.3 version with Long term support. I also use Fedora 16, with compiz, which gives me a half-half and a comfortable interface, with fewer mouse clicks needed to move from window to window, and also the ability to have multiple windows available at one time.
Unity can be salvaged if in the favourites, one can post folder links. This would provide a means to have a rapid view and quick mouse click switch.
I also have tried and do like Linux Mint. However, I have not decided if that is the one for me.
From what I read, there was nothing in the Google announcement that stipulated that Honeycomb would not be open source.
The quote I read indicated that Honeycomb was work-in-process code and not ready for widespread release.
So, why not allow the Google resources to complete their work and pass judgement then.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?
- Three offers free US roaming, confirms stealth 4G rollout