I haven't tried it on a 64bit system, nor am I very familiar with Linux, but I like Ubuntu. I was playing around with an old Thinkpad and put Fedora, Vector and Ubuntu and I think Ubuntu worked the best. To me it seemed more 'out of box' (read minimal configuration) than Fedora and it just seemed to run smoother overal. Most of the ISO images are readily available, might as well just download them all and see what works best for you. You really have nothing to lose but a CD and maybe a few hours...
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
You don't seem to understand what proprietary means. As Sunner pointed out everything included in RHEL is available for free as the GPL mandates. The fact that RH doesn't provide an installer is a non-issue and it's the reason that things like WhiteBox or whatever it's called can exist.
If they were so simple to track down why didn't those "experts" try the RCs and report them before the release?
The fact that RHEL includes software that's usually several revsions older than that's in FC has nothing to do with it? First people bitch that distros like Debian include software that's too old then they bitch that FC is too new, make up your mind.
Other than logos or branding, name one.
Duh, they have to protect their name brand. The fact that RedHat is a registered trademark does not in any way make their software proprietary.
Which infers that their software isn't proprietary since it's under the GPL. And the MP3 decoders aren't included because RH doesn't want to pay for a MP3 license and they don't want to distribute potentially illegal software like most other distros do.
Do you even know what proprietary means? RH doesn't even own most of the code they ship, it's just repackaged software owned by people all around the world. The only things they probably own the rights to are the installer, art and custom config tools they include. So technically the installer could be called proprietary, but it's GPL'd so it's irrelevant.
Mandrake is irrelevant to the discussion. AFAIK, and I haven't verified this recently, they do included some closed source software in their pay-for distribution which would make it illegal to distribute without their permission. RH doesn't do that.
Yes, you can and no, it doesn't.
RH gives away a lot of stuff for free. Their installer is GPL, all of their custom tools are GPL, they bought GFS from Sistina and rereleased it under the GPL. Find me one piece of software that RH distributes that isn't under the GPL, I haven't looked too closely but I don't think there is one.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
This discussion kinda reminds me of the people who say OpenBSD isn't free because the CD layout is copyrighten, hence preventing people from(legally) putting ISO files all over the net.
The fact that the source is about as free as it gets, you can do FTP installs, etc, doesn't seem to matter to them.
The fact that the source is about as free as it gets, you can do FTP installs, etc, doesn't seem to matter to them.
You're not.
Redhat is mostly based on GPLed software. The source is available, download it and build. That's how whitebox does it.
Find something recent please, those are ANCIENT articles. :roll:
Please stop calling us that. I hate Linux.
The mp3 decoder is a licensing issue. mp3 isn't free.
The distro isn't proprietary, some of the programs are. You can still download redhat's source code, WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
RedHat is free, some of their services and software are not. They're unnecessary.
Of course if you guys use warez versions you wouldn't know that...
Whatever man. I've got valid licenses for all non-F/OSS on my machines, and you're more than welcome to come check.
I can copy it all I want actually. If I want to distribute it I can't include the proprietary bits. There's a difference there.
Bullshit! OpenBSD's Theo de Raadt is the perfect example. And you can't get much free-er than OpenBSD.
We have fun with these wastes of time. You should join in sometime.
It's not that tough. Really it isn't. And searching google is much easier than messing with some 13yo on the internet, no matter the OS.
But fun.
I let plenty of differing opinions go by without taking a "swipe at them." You're obviously only paying attention to a small number of incidents. I guess I bruised your poor little ego at some point.
There's content in this one too. Sorry.
>You don't seem to understand what proprietary means. As Sunner pointed out
> everything included in RHEL is available for free as the GPL mandates.
It is you who do not understand what propriietary means. Free of cost does not mean it is not proprietary. Sun is distributing Solaris 10 ifor free currently. It is proprietary. MS is distributing XP for x86-64 for free. It is proprietary. Get it.? It's not that hard to understand. And the mirror sites are where?
As usual, your entire post is wrong from beginning to end. When you are called on your mistakes, distortions, half-truths, and depressing nonsense, you get even more adament.
The regulars on this forum behave more like trolls than the dissenters they take swipes at. If I were running this forum you would be banned.
>RH gives away a lot of stuff for free. Their installer is GPL, all of their custom tools are
>GPL, they bought GFS from Sistina and rereleased it under the GPL. Find
>me one piece of software that RH distributes that isn't under the GPL,
>I haven't looked too closely but I don't think there is one.
RH is one of the good guys. I didn't say they didn't say they didn't give stuff away, or that they didn't comply with the letter of GPL. I said they don't wprk without some compensation. They are holding back on free replication of the real Red Hat, as they are entitled to do. You knew and understood what I said and meant. You knew that when you wrote your reply. You just never admit to ever being wrong, which you are so extensively. Look up conceit in the dictionary.
>If they were so simple to track down why didn't those "experts" try
>the RCs and report them before the release?
Another swipe? I notice that you didn't admit that you were wrong, which was the point I made correctly.
> everything included in RHEL is available for free as the GPL mandates.
It is you who do not understand what propriietary means. Free of cost does not mean it is not proprietary. Sun is distributing Solaris 10 ifor free currently. It is proprietary. MS is distributing XP for x86-64 for free. It is proprietary. Get it.? It's not that hard to understand. And the mirror sites are where?
As usual, your entire post is wrong from beginning to end. When you are called on your mistakes, distortions, half-truths, and depressing nonsense, you get even more adament.
The regulars on this forum behave more like trolls than the dissenters they take swipes at. If I were running this forum you would be banned.
>RH gives away a lot of stuff for free. Their installer is GPL, all of their custom tools are
>GPL, they bought GFS from Sistina and rereleased it under the GPL. Find
>me one piece of software that RH distributes that isn't under the GPL,
>I haven't looked too closely but I don't think there is one.
RH is one of the good guys. I didn't say they didn't say they didn't give stuff away, or that they didn't comply with the letter of GPL. I said they don't wprk without some compensation. They are holding back on free replication of the real Red Hat, as they are entitled to do. You knew and understood what I said and meant. You knew that when you wrote your reply. You just never admit to ever being wrong, which you are so extensively. Look up conceit in the dictionary.
>If they were so simple to track down why didn't those "experts" try
>the RCs and report them before the release?
Another swipe? I notice that you didn't admit that you were wrong, which was the point I made correctly.
Sunner linked to a site.
Solaris 10 is open sourced (or will be, I don't pay attention).
You can get the RedHat EL source.
Proprietary.
Redhat owns two things in RHEL, their copyrighted work, and a cluster manager included with the AS versions.
Oh and I did link to a site where you can download it for free.
Redhat owns two things in RHEL, their copyrighted work, and a cluster manager included with the AS versions.
Oh and I did link to a site where you can download it for free.
It's source rpms only, Sunner. The dsitro is not there.
My only point in this, was to explain why normal people have to get a working, free version of White Box to get the real Red Hat. I think that was clear enough in my first message. It's because the real Red Hat distro is proprietary. If I could get the isos for free, legally, of the real Red Hat, that's what I'd do. But I can't. Free, working versions are fine with me, even with 100% copyrighted binaries and no source.
It is the regulars here that don't want to see the obvious.
I guess the regulars use warez versions, so they are unaware. Regulars, please do not ever get smarty-pants again when some hapless newbie inquires about illegal versions of Windows. If any of you sanctimonious regulars want to send me free copies of the real Red Hat Enterprise distro, contact me by email. Just kidding.
Please don't.Originally posted by: KF
It's source rpms only, Sunner. The dsitro is not there.
My only point in this, was to explain why normal people have to get a working, free version of White Box to get the real Red Hat. I think that was clear enough in my first message. It's because the real Red Hat distro is proprietary. If I could get the isos for free, legally, of the real Red Hat, that's what I'd do. But I can't. Free, working versions are fine with me, even with 100% copyrighted binaries and no source.
It is the regulars here that don't want to see the obvious.
I guess the regulars use warez versions, so they are unaware. Regulars, please do not ever get smarty-pants again when some hapless newbie inquires about illegal versions of Windows. If any of you sanctimonious regulars want to send me free copies of the real Red Hat Enterprise distro, contact me by email. Just kidding.
The source IS the distro. It's the important part, it's all you need. isos are unnecessary. Unavailable isos does not make a distro proprietary. To be proprietary the source would have to be hidden from us, but it isn't. Anyone can take the source and create a new RedHat EL, like the whitebox guys did.
100% of the Linux kernel is copyrighted by the way.
Most of the source in your typical distro is copyrighted, that's the whole point of the GPL.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
And RH is free in cost and free in open source, how is it proprietary if it's free in both senses of the word? Oh and Sunner posted links above, maybe you should read slower?
Then how is their stuff proprietary? The only thing they don't let you do is redistribute the software using their name and that's because they have to protect their trademarks. You still have yet to name one thing other than artwork that isn't under a GPL or better license.
I haven't admitted anything because I'm not wrong, perhaps english isn't your primary language but you don't seem to grasp the fact that RH is as free as it ever was.
Originally posted by: KF
It's source rpms only, Sunner. The dsitro is not there.
My only point in this, was to explain why normal people have to get a working, free version of White Box to get the real Red Hat. I think that was clear enough in my first message. It's because the real Red Hat distro is proprietary. If I could get the isos for free, legally, of the real Red Hat, that's what I'd do. But I can't. Free, working versions are fine with me, even with 100% copyrighted binaries and no source.
It is the regulars here that don't want to see the obvious.
I guess the regulars use warez versions, so they are unaware. Regulars, please do not ever get smarty-pants again when some hapless newbie inquires about illegal versions of Windows. If any of you sanctimonious regulars want to send me free copies of the real Red Hat Enterprise distro, contact me by email. Just kidding.
The binary version isn't free, or rather not available, indeed.
The source is however, Redhat doesn't own it(most of it anyway, Redhat does have quite a few engineers working on the kernel and other projects, so they may own that, depending on the copyrights).
Hence it's free, Redhat just isn't making free ISO's available, you're free to compile it "as is" though, and use any way you want, the only copyright issues you'll ever run into are with Redhat logos and such.
Would you say that OpenBSD is proprietary? No ISO's available there, the ISO layout is copyright The de Raadt.
Face it, Redhat doesn't own anything, save for their artwork and the above mentioned cluster tools, it's all free software, some is (c)Linus, some (c)Alan Cox, ans so forth, but the only proprietary part is the cluster tools.
Oh and I use Debian myself, we use RHEL at work though, all paid for.
Proprietary is just a version of the word property made into an adjective. I happen to disagree that Red Hat's distro is legitimate property. I happen to disagree that intellectual property is legitimate property. But what counts is that legal mirror sites respect Red Hat's intellectual property as if it were true property, or at least their lawyers advise them that is the law. That describes why the distro is property, in law. True, there may be some other meaning of proprietary not pertaining to getting a legal copy of the real Red Hat.
Let's take a book for example. Imagine that all parts of the book are available in the public domain. Let's say it is about Newton's several hundred year old Principia, citing every scholar who had something to say about it whose work had passed into the public domain. That book is 100% copyright protected under the law. Under the law, it is intellectual property. That is: proprietary. It does not matter to the law that everything in it is in the public domain. You can't republish the book without permsision. You can republish any or all the pieces that are in the public domain. Or you can make up your own knockoff book
I didn't think I was splitting any hairs in the original post. It is just the normal, everyday use of the word "proprietary." It's Red Hat's property. I think what you guys are running up against are the internal contradictions of so-called intellectual property. How can something that is 98% or even 100% unowned, in the public domain, or "open," become private propetry? Isn't that what the GPL was trying to eliminate? But that's the way the law is. If the owner doesn't assert his rights, it's a moot point. But sometimes they do.
To be fair, just assembling parts into something larger and more useful is a kind of content in itself, and it is work. By protecting the whole object, which might consist only of unprotected parts, the law provides a source of possible income for those that choose to do the work. You can evade paying, as mentioned, but then the people who do the work have to get their income doing something else, and may quit doing it altogether. OTOH, it strikes people as unfair that the final part of the chain is getting paid while everyone else contibuted the pieces for free.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
No. Even if the code is GPL'd it's owned by the person who wrote it and they can do anything they want with it, including relicense it to someone under a closed license.
Who? All of those people contributed their code under the GPL of their own free will, if they think it's unfair that RH bundles their code they should put their next release under a more restrictive license.
No, it's not Redhat's property, that's the part you're missing.
The Redhat logos and stuff is Redhats's property, the rest is not, that's why Whitebox and CentOS exist, because it's free for anyone, they just took the time to compile it.
You could too if you wanted, and the reason you could is because it's free.
Redhat doesn't charge any money for the Linux kernel, the GNU toolchain, etc.
They charge money for support, and the thing that's preventing you from putting ISO's all over net is in their trademark stuff, logos and so forth, and that's it.
The basic distro, Redhat Enterprise Linux, is 100% free, take out the Redhat artwork(which is copyrighted), and the cluster tools(which is indeed proprietary), and it's all just free for anyone to use as they see fit, be it to sell it, use it to guide an ICBM, or whatever floats your boat.
The Redhat logos and stuff is Redhats's property, the rest is not, that's why Whitebox and CentOS exist, because it's free for anyone, they just took the time to compile it.
You could too if you wanted, and the reason you could is because it's free.
Redhat doesn't charge any money for the Linux kernel, the GNU toolchain, etc.
They charge money for support, and the thing that's preventing you from putting ISO's all over net is in their trademark stuff, logos and so forth, and that's it.
The basic distro, Redhat Enterprise Linux, is 100% free, take out the Redhat artwork(which is copyrighted), and the cluster tools(which is indeed proprietary), and it's all just free for anyone to use as they see fit, be it to sell it, use it to guide an ICBM, or whatever floats your boat.
I've seen plenty of happy posts from BSD developers that their stuff is getting used in <some product Free or not>. I'm guessing the GPL developers would be similar (their code is getting used by someone else within the rules of the license).
batmang
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2003
- 3,020
- 1
- 81
id have to say ubuntu over fedora for new users or people who dont feel like compiling everything (people like me.).
gentoo if your experienced is always better, cause you do everything and you can control and configure everything during the initial setup. plus, its prolly more fun if your experience, and very aggrivating if your semi new.
i like ease, so id say ubuntu over all of them. its one of the best distro's out right now if you ask me. im using it right now.
gentoo if your experienced is always better, cause you do everything and you can control and configure everything during the initial setup. plus, its prolly more fun if your experience, and very aggrivating if your semi new.
i like ease, so id say ubuntu over all of them. its one of the best distro's out right now if you ask me. im using it right now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter