Fedora Core 5 - First Impressions

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Downloaded ISOs from redhat. It's 100% on the up and up (work, not personal). 🙂

just a note: I _think_ even if you download through p2p or get if from a friend, it's still legit. I mean, under the GPL it would have to be. The support is what they are selling, not the ISOs. Redhat just decided to be a jick and make it difficult to obtain the ISOs. I was just saying, there could be something flakey if you got it from p2p without verifying an md5 sum. But you didn't, so not an issue, I just felt like pointing out the legitimacy was not my point earlier.

But like I said, I've never used official RHES, so I don't know of any differences in the install. Maybe you could try out CentOS and then I KNOW you will have an option for a "minimal install."

So do you have an option to customize packages? If you just unchecked the x server, then maybe it got added back in due to dependencies of another package that was left checked. Try scrolling all the way to the bottom of where you customize packages and see if there is an option that says "minimal install"

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Downloaded ISOs from redhat. It's 100% on the up and up (work, not personal). 🙂

just a note: I _think_ even if you download through p2p or get if from a friend, it's still legit. I mean, under the GPL it would have to be. The support is what they are selling, not the ISOs. Redhat just decided to be a jick and make it difficult to obtain the ISOs. I was just saying, there could be something flakey if you got it from p2p without verifying an md5 sum. But you didn't, so not an issue, I just felt like pointing out the legitimacy was not my point earlier.

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

But like I said, I've never used official RHES, so I don't know of any differences in the install. Maybe you could try out CentOS and then I KNOW you will have an option for a "minimal install."

So do you have an option to customize packages? If you just unchecked the x server, then maybe it got added back in due to dependencies of another package that was left checked. Try scrolling all the way to the bottom of where you customize packages and see if there is an option that says "minimal install"

I think there is a minimal install option, but I don't want minimal. I want custom. But the custom option doesn't give you options for every package available.

 

[SokaMoka]

For you guys with Fedora Core 5 I thought you would like to give AIGLX a shot , so go here, if you have an intel graphics / Radeon card most probably you will have no issues getting it up and running, my IBM S50 desktop is the machine which I am testing Fedora Core 5 on, it has integrated Intel graphics and AIGLX runs good on it :beer:

AIGLX folks are putting up the final touches on it so for you guys waiting for the extra effects and Nvidia support you will have to wait a bit as the wiki mentions 😀

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Downloaded ISOs from redhat. It's 100% on the up and up (work, not personal). 🙂

just a note: I _think_ even if you download through p2p or get if from a friend, it's still legit. I mean, under the GPL it would have to be. The support is what they are selling, not the ISOs. Redhat just decided to be a jick and make it difficult to obtain the ISOs. I was just saying, there could be something flakey if you got it from p2p without verifying an md5 sum. But you didn't, so not an issue, I just felt like pointing out the legitimacy was not my point earlier.

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I think it's mostly just trademark stuff.

If you want to have a completely 'Free' Redhat system then CentOS seems to be the best choice. They strip out all the redhat-related references and replace them with generic names.

I think that Redhat is very pro-'open source' sort of company. They've pretty much open sourced most everything and also put a lot of work into things like Gcj and openoffice.org to get away from the Sun-related dependancies. Bought and open sourced GFS. Bought and open sourced Netscape directory systems. Stuff like that.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I'm _pretty_ sure though that under the terms of the GPL license, they can bundle GPL software with their non-GPL software, but they can not charge for it. Hence, even though Redhat does not provide the ISOs on the web, they can not stop people from distributing it for free because technically when they sell a Redhat Linux CD, they are selling the physical disk and the support but NOT the information on the disc in order to abide by the GPL license included with their non-GPL information.

I only know this because on the CentOS site I read a blurb about how Redhat threatened to sue CentOS unless they stopped using the Redhat name and logo in the ISO's they built from the Redhat sources (all of which are freely downloadable from Redhat). CentOS's response was basically that Redhat can't actually do that but it was not worth fighting so CentOS just kept all the sources the same, but just replaced the Redhat name and logo with their own.

edit: oops, drag posted while I was typing!

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: SokaMoka
For you guys with Fedora Core 5 I thought you would like to give AIGLX a shot , so go here, if you have an intel graphics / Radeon card most probably you will have no issues getting it up and running, my IBM S50 desktop is the machine which I am testing Fedora Core 5 on, it has integrated Intel graphics and AIGLX runs good on it :beer:

AIGLX folks are putting up the final touches on it so for you guys waiting for the extra effects and Nvidia support you will have to wait a bit as the wiki mentions 😀

Yeah, I've heard about that but have not seen any vids or tested it out myself. I have tested out the XGL stuff though (a _competitor_ to AIGLX) and it looks AWESOME!! The only reason I checked out XGL though is becuase it is available on a livecd. If anybody wants to check out the livecd, go to http://kororaa.org .

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Downloaded ISOs from redhat. It's 100% on the up and up (work, not personal). 🙂

just a note: I _think_ even if you download through p2p or get if from a friend, it's still legit. I mean, under the GPL it would have to be. The support is what they are selling, not the ISOs. Redhat just decided to be a jick and make it difficult to obtain the ISOs. I was just saying, there could be something flakey if you got it from p2p without verifying an md5 sum. But you didn't, so not an issue, I just felt like pointing out the legitimacy was not my point earlier.

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I think it's mostly just trademark stuff.

If you want to have a completely 'Free' Redhat system then CentOS seems to be the best choice. They strip out all the redhat-related references and replace them with generic names.

I think that Redhat is very pro-'open source' sort of company. They've pretty much open sourced most everything and also put a lot of work into things like Gcj and openoffice.org to get away from the Sun-related dependancies. Bought and open sourced GFS. Bought and open sourced Netscape directory systems. Stuff like that.

Thanks for the clarification. 🙂 I didn't think it was anything huge, but enough to never really look for it on bt sites. I've considered loading up centos on a home machine, but I haven't gotten around to it. I have legit RHES4 cds anyhow. 😉

If they were really pro-open source they'd donate to OpenSSH. 😉

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I'm _pretty_ sure though that under the terms of the GPL license, they can bundle GPL software with their non-GPL software, but they can not charge for it. Hence, even though Redhat does not provide the ISOs on the web, they can not stop people from distributing it for free because technically when they sell a Redhat Linux CD, they are selling the physical disk and the support but NOT the information on the disc in order to abide by the GPL license included with their non-GPL information.

That doesn't even make sense. 😕

I only know this because on the CentOS site I read a blurb about how Redhat threatened to sue CentOS unless they stopped using the Redhat name and logo in the ISO's they built from the Redhat sources (all of which are freely downloadable from Redhat). CentOS's response was basically that Redhat can't actually do that but it was not worth fighting so CentOS just kept all the sources the same, but just replaced the Redhat name and logo with their own.

edit: oops, drag posted while I was typing!

Sounds like trademark infringement to me, but I'm not going to go digging into it or anything. 😉

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I'm _pretty_ sure though that under the terms of the GPL license, they can bundle GPL software with their non-GPL software, but they can not charge for it. Hence, even though Redhat does not provide the ISOs on the web, they can not stop people from distributing it for free because technically when they sell a Redhat Linux CD, they are selling the physical disk and the support but NOT the information on the disc in order to abide by the GPL license included with their non-GPL information.

That doesn't even make sense. 😕

I only know this because on the CentOS site I read a blurb about how Redhat threatened to sue CentOS unless they stopped using the Redhat name and logo in the ISO's they built from the Redhat sources (all of which are freely downloadable from Redhat). CentOS's response was basically that Redhat can't actually do that but it was not worth fighting so CentOS just kept all the sources the same, but just replaced the Redhat name and logo with their own.

edit: oops, drag posted while I was typing!

Sounds like trademark infringement to me, but I'm not going to go digging into it or anything. 😉

Well, trademark infringement may have been what Redhat was arguing, but when they include their trademark with the GPL software, they forego the rights to the trademark. That is the terms of the GPL.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think they include some non-GPL stuff in their official ISOs, so I dunno how legit it would be. 😛

I'm _pretty_ sure though that under the terms of the GPL license, they can bundle GPL software with their non-GPL software, but they can not charge for it. Hence, even though Redhat does not provide the ISOs on the web, they can not stop people from distributing it for free because technically when they sell a Redhat Linux CD, they are selling the physical disk and the support but NOT the information on the disc in order to abide by the GPL license included with their non-GPL information.

That doesn't even make sense. 😕

I only know this because on the CentOS site I read a blurb about how Redhat threatened to sue CentOS unless they stopped using the Redhat name and logo in the ISO's they built from the Redhat sources (all of which are freely downloadable from Redhat). CentOS's response was basically that Redhat can't actually do that but it was not worth fighting so CentOS just kept all the sources the same, but just replaced the Redhat name and logo with their own.

edit: oops, drag posted while I was typing!

Sounds like trademark infringement to me, but I'm not going to go digging into it or anything. 😉

Well, trademark infringement may have been what Redhat was arguing, but when they include their trademark with the GPL software, they forego the rights to the trademark. That is the terms of the GPL.

Please point out the section that deals with trademarks. It's been a while since I read the beast commonly known as the GPL, but I don't think it mentions trademarks. Hell, the term Linux is trademarked.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Please point out the section that deals with trademarks. It's been a while since I read the beast commonly known as the GPL, but I don't think it mentions trademarks. Hell, the term Linux is trademarked.

Not sure if it specifically mentions trademarks.

Nobody has to pay for or is refused usage of the term Linux. Having a trademark is not forbidden by the GPL, charging to use it/distribute it is.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Please point out the section that deals with trademarks. It's been a while since I read the beast commonly known as the GPL, but I don't think it mentions trademarks. Hell, the term Linux is trademarked.

Not sure if it specifically mentions trademarks.

Nobody has to pay for or is refused usage of the term Linux. Having a trademark is not forbidden by the GPL, charging to use it/distribute it is.

The GPL does not cover trademarks. All Redhat has to do to comply with the GPL is provide the source for the GPLed applications (nothing else, not non-GPL software nor trademarked thingies) to customers that purchase their distribution. It's not against the GPL to charge for the software. It isn't against the GPL to include non-GPL software in the same distro and charge for it. It is not against the GPL to utilize a trademark and protect it as trademarks have to be protected. Only the hiding of the source of GPLed works is forbidden.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Please point out the section that deals with trademarks. It's been a while since I read the beast commonly known as the GPL, but I don't think it mentions trademarks. Hell, the term Linux is trademarked.

Not sure if it specifically mentions trademarks.

Nobody has to pay for or is refused usage of the term Linux. Having a trademark is not forbidden by the GPL, charging to use it/distribute it is.

The GPL does not cover trademarks. All Redhat has to do to comply with the GPL is provide the source for the GPLed applications (nothing else, not non-GPL software nor trademarked thingies) to customers that purchase their distribution. It's not against the GPL to charge for the software. It isn't against the GPL to include non-GPL software in the same distro and charge for it. It is not against the GPL to utilize a trademark and protect it as trademarks have to be protected. Only the hiding of the source of GPLed works is forbidden.

Eh, whatever. Don't really care, I was trying to answer your questions from memory. Don't know why you asked if you already know that...