On Mon, 22 May 2000, Prentice wrote:
> Apparently, Red Hat likes to remove things, too. I've been having the
> damnedest time trying to install RH 6.2 on Dell Pricision workstations that
> have Ultra66 controllers. The RH install fails even though the kernel should
> support Ultra66 disk controllers. I get the unadultered kernel from kerl.org,
> and I have no problems. I've managed to develop a workaround, but I have to
> install RH 6.2 on about a dozen machines in the next few weeks. Big hassle. If
> it was my decision, I'd stop using RH altogether just because of this one
> issue. Corel installed flawlessly, but we've standardized on RH 6.2.
>
As far as I know, _all_ Linux distributions customize the kernel they
bundle. What the heck, even VA Linux does the same for their systems.
So, please don't point fingers at Red Hat as if they are the only ones
doing this. After all, that is precisely one of the few elements that a
distribution can use to differentiate itself from the others. Their
decisions may be subject to debate, but the fact that they change the
kernel does not make them the enemy since everyone else does it too.
> If you ask me, RH is doing everything they can to become the Microsoft of the
> Linux world. I read somehwere that in earlier releases (6.0?) they removed U66
> support from the kernel. From my experiences, it's not in 6.1 or 6.2 either.
> Why on earth would they remove much need hardware support from the kernel? Like
> I said, I would stop using RH and switch to another distro, but it's not my
> choice. Thanks to their Microsoft-esque guerrilla marketing tactics, most
> companies that sell commercial software for Linux, do not market it as for
> "Linux," but for "Red Hat."
>
Regarding the kernel issues, read me other reply above.
I also believe it is unfair to call Red Hat "the Microsoft of the Linux
world". They are an opensource company that has always bet on opensource,
at least to this date (that, of course, may change soon). Every single
application coming from their labs has been released as opensource, which
by the way has made it possible for others to take advantage of the
situation and leapfrog in the development of their own distributions
(e.g., Mandrake, SuSE and Caldera were all based in Red Hat at one point
or another).
If you're looking to point fingers (which is something I'd love not to see
in the Linux community anyway) there are certainly other distributions
that are far more commercialized than Red Hat.
Finally, if commercial software is marketed as for "Red Hat" instead of
"Linux", there is very little the Red Hat guys can do. I have not seen
much software marketed that way, in any event.
> Yes, I'm bitter and I'm pissed - what should be a simple installation project
> is becoming a major hassle. No flaming necessary, but if you still feel the
> need, at least send the flames tot he list so everyone can enjoy them : ).
>
Not sure if this is goig to work for you, but there is a document on the
Web that explains how to build your own distro based in Red Hat. It
doesn't seem to be so difficult. You may want to take a look and build a
new CD with the kernel that seems to work for you, then install it in all
the boxes.
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/RedHat-CD-HOWTO
---------------------
Nitebirdz: http://www.linuxnovice.org
"Open source tries to move software from a witchcraft to a science. People
start discussing ideas and suddenly you don't have shamanistic companies
telling you how it is." (Linus Torvalds)
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
