Hi Readers and Typers,
Been reading the news...

> Oracle takes on Red Hat in Linux code fight
> By sjvn July 13, 2023
>
> Oracle declares that it will always make the binaries and source code
> for its Linux distribution publicly and freely available.
> Now, it's Oracle's turn to jump into the Red Hat open-source Linux code
> kerfuffle. Written by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, Senior Contributing Editor
> on July 11, 2023
>
> I'd been waiting for Oracle to throw its hat into the ring for the
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Linux source-code fight. I knew it
> was only a matter of time.
>
> On July 10, Oracle's Edward Screven, chief corporate architect, and
> Wim Coekaerts, head of Oracle Linux development, declared: "IBM's
> actions are not in your best interest. By killing CentOS as a RHEL
> alternative and attacking AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux, IBM is eliminating
> one way your customers save money and make a larger share of their wallet
> available to you." And it goes on from there and you can read the rest
> at <https://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-takes-on-red-hat-in-linux-code-fight/>

bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Hi Readers and Typers,
> Been reading the news...
>
>> Oracle takes on Red Hat in Linux code fight
>> By sjvn July 13, 2023
>>
<snip>

>> at <https://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-takes-on-red-hat-in-linux-code-fight/>
>

I was wondering when this would happen, will need to by some
more popcorn, I wish I had stock in the popcorn companies :)

But Oracle ? Crazy, it is like a "Do what I say, not what I
do" moment.

Thanks for the Link

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

"Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
OL and RHEL.

In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
the whole thing. Drop it. There are several
other unique distro branches to choose from
so it's time to move there. Deb is solid,
but Arch derivatives are of interest as well
and some still like Slack. Maybe the vacuum
will spawn something new to replace the
RHEL branch. The add-ons RHEL puts in there
to help cope with big clusters and distributed
computing and some other biz needs can be
re-created elsewhere if needed.

I've been fooling with OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
lately - which IS a pretty unique Oracle deriv.
It's not "as good" as modern Linux ... lots
of common little things where it seems you
just can't get there from here ... but it IS
something and COULD be further spiffed-up.

On 7/17/23 08:22, 36J.955 wrote:
> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
> OL and RHEL.

Actually there can be no completely Unique
Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
work which will remain FOSS.

Oracle can continue to use the previously
FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
own Oracular Linux.

>
> In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
> branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
> the whole thing. Drop it. There are several
> other unique distro branches to choose from
> so it's time to move there. Deb is solid,
> but Arch derivatives are of interest as well
> and some still like Slack. Maybe the vacuum
> will spawn something new to replace the
> RHEL branch. The add-ons RHEL puts in there
> to help cope with big clusters and distributed
> computing and some other biz needs can be
> re-created elsewhere if needed.
>
> I've been fooling with OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
> lately - which IS a pretty unique Oracle deriv.
> It's not "as good" as modern Linux ... lots
> of common little things where it seems you
> just can't get there from here ... but it IS
> something and COULD be further spiffed-up.

I don't worry about big clusters and distributed
computing. I just worry about my personal use and for
me PCLinux OS 64 is just fine. I never saw anything in
Red Hat or in the users of that source code to attract
me except in specialized iso distributions.
PCLinuxOS answers my needs.

bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:49:44 -0400, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Actually there can be no completely Unique
> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
> work which will remain FOSS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel

> Oracle can continue to use the previously
> FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
> own Oracular Linux.
>
>>
>> In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
>> branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
>> the whole thing. Drop it. There are several

There are forks that will be mostly unaffected. Mandrake/Mandriva forked from
redhat in 98. Mageia forked from Mandrake/Mandriva in 2010.

Mageia should not be impacted. If IBM/Redhat fails to share updates with upstream
providers, it risks losing access to all GPL software. They will have to be
extremely careful to make sure that does not happen.

What they do with code that is only used by Redhat doesn't have any impact on
distributions that are not using those tools, such as Mageia. Keep in mind that
things like rpm which originated at Redhat forked into their own open source
projects such as rpm.org long ago.

Regards Dave Hodgins

36J.955 <36J955@qfxw6.net> wrote:
> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
> OL and RHEL.

RHEL seems to have become an industry standard for the "cloud
computing" industry. Oracle Linux is default for their Oracle Cloud
VPSs. In Amazon Web Services land they've got "Amazon Linux",
which Wikipedia says "is largely binary compatible with Red Hat
Enterprise Linux", so probably a similar thing to Oracle Linux. In
Microsoft land, they've got Microsoft's "CBL-Mariner" Linux distro,
for which Wikipedia says "Updates are offered either as RPM
packages or as complete disk images", so they've at least borrowed
Red Hat's package format as well, if not more.

Maybe IBM just doesn't want to be developing an industry standard
Linux distro. It's a bit like the IBM PC - they develop the
standard and then other business make copies that everyone buys
instead of their models.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 7/17/23 08:22, 36J.955 wrote:
>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>> OL and RHEL.
>
> Actually there can be no completely Unique
> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
> work which will remain FOSS.

At this point it's important to remember that there's a lot of
Red Hat code going into the Linux kernel itself as well. Much more
than from the other commercial Linux distro developers.

Red Hat vs. SUSE vs. Canonical Contributions To The Mainline Linux
Kernel Over The 2010s:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/RedHat-SUSE-Canonical-Kern-10s

Top Git commit email domains for the Linux kernel in 2021:
https://www.phoronix.com/misc/linux-2021-stats/authors.html#commits_by_domains

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 7/17/23 15:10, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 36J.955 <36J955@qfxw6.net> wrote:
>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>> OL and RHEL.
>
> RHEL seems to have become an industry standard for the "cloud
> computing" industry. Oracle Linux is default for their Oracle Cloud
> VPSs. In Amazon Web Services land they've got "Amazon Linux",
> which Wikipedia says "is largely binary compatible with Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux", so probably a similar thing to Oracle Linux. In
> Microsoft land, they've got Microsoft's "CBL-Mariner" Linux distro,
> for which Wikipedia says "Updates are offered either as RPM
> packages or as complete disk images", so they've at least borrowed
> Red Hat's package format as well, if not more.
>
> Maybe IBM just doesn't want to be developing an industry standard
> Linux distro. It's a bit like the IBM PC - they develop the
> standard and then other business make copies that everyone buys
> instead of their models.
>

IBM should have not bought Red Hat then. It was a badly considered
move. Just like the IBC PC and the PC Jr. No one
copied Junior it was such a bad idea. But they copied the archetecturee
of the PC can soon we had armies of clones. 8088 clones. But the
technology advanced. It seemed very slow at the time. But it only took
the x86 line abut 10 years to catch up to the Motorola 68060.

bliss - who started wasting her time with the 6502. C=64.
--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 7/17/23 12:01, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:49:44 -0400, Bobbie Sellers
> <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>     Actually there can be no completely Unique
>> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
>> work which will remain FOSS.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel
>
>>     Oracle can continue to use the previously
>> FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
>> own Oracular Linux.
>>
>>>
>>> In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
>>> branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
>>> the whole thing. Drop it. There are several
>
> There are forks that will be mostly unaffected. Mandrake/Mandriva forked
> from
> redhat in 98. Mageia forked from Mandrake/Mandriva in 2010.

And PCLinuxOS forked from Mandrake but took later images from Mandriva.
It is much better than most other forks of Mandrake/Mandriva
and it is a rolling release.

>
> Mageia should not be impacted. If IBM/Redhat fails to share updates with
> upstream
> providers, it risks losing access to all GPL software. They will have to be
> extremely careful to make sure that does not happen.
>
> What they do with code that is only used by Redhat doesn't have any
> impact on
> distributions that are not using those tools, such as Mageia. Keep in
> mind that
> things like rpm which originated at Redhat forked into their own open
> source
> projects such as rpm.org long ago.
>
> Regards Dave Hodgins

bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 23:19:42 -0400, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> And PCLinuxOS forked from Mandrake but took later images from Mandriva.
> It is much better than most other forks of Mandrake/Mandriva
> and it is a rolling release.

The thing I don't like about a rolling release is that any update may include
a new version of a package that requires manual changes to configuration files.

That's ok if you're the only user, but not if you have non-technical users who
you want to be able to install updates when you are not around to make changes.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 7/17/23 22:51, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 23:19:42 -0400, Bobbie Sellers
> <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>     And PCLinuxOS forked from Mandrake but took later images from
>> Mandriva.
>>   It is much better than most other forks of Mandrake/Mandriva
>> and it is a rolling release.
>
> The thing I don't like about a rolling release is that any update may
> include
> a new version of a package that requires manual changes to configuration
> files.
>
> That's ok if you're the only user, but not if you have non-technical
> users who
> you want to be able to install updates when you are not around to make
> changes.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins

Visit the PCLinux Users Forum to see the level of support that makes
this possible. I have no CS degree nor any classes in Linux just
a lot of not very helpful books, I started on the C=64 moving up to the
Amiga and used both for work of all sorts. The Amiga OS was a good
training for more expansive GNU/Linux.
As for Rolling Realease causing problems I have an easier time with it
than with the Mandriva yearly iso file or the Mageia which I used for
a couple of years.

bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

In the latest Distrowatch weekly newsletter
at <https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20230717#news>

is an interesting addition to the IBM/RG kerfuffle.

> In the wake of Red Hat cutting off public access to their Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) source code,
> SUSE has announced the company is making a fork of RHEL. "A key priority is to continue to provide choice for customers.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 7/17/23 11:49 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/17/23 08:22, 36J.955 wrote:
>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>> OL and RHEL.
>
>
>     Actually there can be no completely Unique
> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
> work which will remain FOSS.

Remember that "Linux" is barely more than an OS kernel.
By itself it's hardly useful for ANYTHING. It's the
distros, all the little add-on packages and how they
are made to work together, that makes what we like to
call "Linux".

>     Oracle can continue to use the previously
> FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
> own Oracular Linux.

Nah ... I don't think it's gonna do that - too much
trouble, too much expense. OL will be RHEL until it
becomes extinct.

DUMP it. It's not for "Us" anymore.

There WILL be young hot-shots who can duplicate
everything special about RHEL using non-copywrit
work-alike code. Encourage them. However the results
won't be out/stable for a couple of years at least.

>> In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
>> branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
>> the whole thing. Drop it. There are several
>> other unique distro branches to choose from
>> so it's time to move there. Deb is solid,
>> but Arch derivatives are of interest as well
>> and some still like Slack. Maybe the vacuum
>> will spawn something new to replace the
>> RHEL branch. The add-ons RHEL puts in there
>> to help cope with big clusters and distributed
>> computing and some other biz needs can be
>> re-created elsewhere if needed.
>>
>> I've been fooling with OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
>> lately - which IS a pretty unique Oracle deriv.
>> It's not "as good" as modern Linux ... lots
>> of common little things where it seems you
>> just can't get there from here ... but it IS
>> something and COULD be further spiffed-up.
>
>
>     I don't worry about big clusters and distributed
> computing.  I just worry about my personal use and for
> me PCLinux OS 64 is just fine.  I never saw anything in
> Red Hat or in the users of that source code to attract
> me except in specialized iso distributions.
> PCLinuxOS answers my needs.
>
>
> bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6
>

PCLinuxOS is just fine. I have it in a VM right now and
do use it periodically. What I'm saying is that anything
that derives almost all its goodies from RHEL is dead-end.
IBM is seeing to that. IBM isn't "evil", but they DO
expect a return on investment. Their "vision" is different
from Linus's.

As for the big clusters/distributed stuff, many DO worry
about that. It's how to make high-throughput failure-
resistant systems vital in today's real world. THEY can
and will pay the $$$ and stick with RHEL/IBM. But for "Us",
the RHEL branch is DEAD.

FYI, I use Mint on desktops and MX on laptops. All very good.
Just put native Deb on a Pi-4 ... always experimenting. Tried
a few Arch derivatives ... but mostly they're just too much
work IMHO. I see Endeavour is up to #2 on the list, just behind
MX. It's probably the best set-up Arch derivative - all the
good bits but a lot less pain.

On 7/18/23 11:23 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/17/23 22:51, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 23:19:42 -0400, Bobbie Sellers
>> <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>     And PCLinuxOS forked from Mandrake but took later images from
>>> Mandriva.
>>>   It is much better than most other forks of Mandrake/Mandriva
>>> and it is a rolling release.
>>
>> The thing I don't like about a rolling release is that any update may
>> include
>> a new version of a package that requires manual changes to
>> configuration files.

He noticed that eh ? :-)

>> That's ok if you're the only user, but not if you have non-technical
>> users who
>> you want to be able to install updates when you are not around to make
>> changes.
>>
>> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>
>     Visit the PCLinux Users Forum to see the level of support that
> makes this possible.  I have no CS degree nor any classes in Linux just
> a lot of not very helpful books, I started on the C=64 moving up to the
> Amiga and used both for work of all sorts.  The Amiga OS was a good
> training for more expansive GNU/Linux.
> As for Rolling Realease causing problems I have an easier time with it
> than with the Mandriva yearly iso file or the Mageia which I used for
> a couple of years.
>
> bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6
>

I started a bit earlier than that, PDP-11 and TTYs/punchcards.
Pain in the ass. The first "PC" I could afford was a VIC-20,
still fond of them. The C-64 relied on banked memory and was
thus a bit more "dirty" to program. But if you want bad/stupid
look at the TI99-4a which BARELY used its 16-bit CPU at all
because it and the memory were too expensive ... 99% of stuff
ran on the video processor. Interesting hardware multi-user/
multi-tasking stuff on the TMS9900 chip though ... it was
really better suited to TIs mini-computer line. Faster/cheaper
memory made the hardware MU/MT trick obsolete in the end.

The BEST chips were the M68000 series though IMHO. Bliss.
Not sure they COULD have been scaled-up to use all the
modern speed tricks however. Motorola should have TRIED
though ......

On 7/18/23 20:41, 36J.956 wrote:
> On 7/17/23 11:49 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>> On 7/17/23 08:22, 36J.955 wrote:
>>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>>> OL and RHEL.
>>
>>
>>      Actually there can be no completely Unique
>> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
>> work which will remain FOSS.
>
>
>   Remember that "Linux" is barely more than an OS kernel.
>   By itself it's hardly useful for ANYTHING. It's the
>   distros, all the little add-on packages and how they
>   are made to work together, that makes what we like to
>   call "Linux".

Yes well we call it GNU/Linux formally because of all the
contributions made by GNU that help tie it together and provide
ways to do things and then the Linux supporting companies that do
FOSS like KDE, LibreOffice, Gnome, Mozilla. etc. ad lib.

>
>
>>      Oracle can continue to use the previously
>> FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
>> own Oracular Linux.

Read the last two issues of Distrowatch.
SUZE has chimed in as well and European user of RH Source
are adding some remarks.
>
>   Nah ... I don't think it's gonna do that - too much
>   trouble, too much expense. OL will be RHEL until it
>   becomes extinct.
>
>   DUMP it. It's not for "Us" anymore.
>
>   There WILL be young hot-shots who can duplicate
>   everything special about RHEL using non-copywrit
>   work-alike code. Encourage them. However the results
>   won't be out/stable for a couple of years at least.
>
>>> In any case, as I've said before, the RHEL
>>> branch is just dead to us now, IBM ruined
>>> the whole thing. Drop it. There are several
>>> other unique distro branches to choose from
>>> so it's time to move there. Deb is solid,
>>> but Arch derivatives are of interest as well
>>> and some still like Slack. Maybe the vacuum
>>> will spawn something new to replace the
>>> RHEL branch. The add-ons RHEL puts in there
>>> to help cope with big clusters and distributed
>>> computing and some other biz needs can be
>>> re-created elsewhere if needed.
>>>
>>> I've been fooling with OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
>>> lately - which IS a pretty unique Oracle deriv.
>>> It's not "as good" as modern Linux ... lots
>>> of common little things where it seems you
>>> just can't get there from here ... but it IS
>>> something and COULD be further spiffed-up.
>>
>>
>>      I don't worry about big clusters and distributed
>> computing.  I just worry about my personal use and for
>> me PCLinux OS 64 is just fine.  I never saw anything in
>> Red Hat or in the users of that source code to attract
>> me except in specialized iso distributions.
>> PCLinuxOS answers my needs.
>>
>>
>> bliss - Dell E7450- PCLinuxOS 64- Linux 6.4.3- KDE Plasma 5.27.6
>>
>
>   PCLinuxOS is just fine. I have it in a VM right now and
>   do use it periodically. What I'm saying is that anything
>   that derives almost all its goodies from RHEL is dead-end.
>   IBM is seeing to that. IBM isn't "evil", but they DO
>   expect a return on investment. Their "vision" is different
>   from Linus's.
>
>   As for the big clusters/distributed stuff, many DO worry
>   about that. It's how to make high-throughput failure-
>   resistant systems vital in today's real world. THEY can
>   and will pay the $$$ and stick with RHEL/IBM. But for "Us",
>   the RHEL branch is DEAD.
>
>   FYI, I use Mint on desktops and MX on laptops. All very good.
>   Just put native Deb on a Pi-4 ... always experimenting. Tried
>   a few Arch derivatives ... but mostly they're just too much
>   work IMHO. I see Endeavour is up to #2 on the list, just behind
>   MX. It's probably the best set-up Arch derivative - all the
>   good bits but a lot less pain.

Good nite
bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 7/19/23 1:55 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/18/23 20:41, 36J.956 wrote:
>> On 7/17/23 11:49 AM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> On 7/17/23 08:22, 36J.955 wrote:
>>>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>>>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>>>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>>>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>>>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>>>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>>>> OL and RHEL.
>>>
>>>
>>>      Actually there can be no completely Unique
>>> Linux distribution as all use Linus Torwald's fine
>>> work which will remain FOSS.
>>
>>
>>    Remember that "Linux" is barely more than an OS kernel.
>>    By itself it's hardly useful for ANYTHING. It's the
>>    distros, all the little add-on packages and how they
>>    are made to work together, that makes what we like to
>>    call "Linux".
>
>     Yes well we call it GNU/Linux formally because of all the
> contributions made by GNU that help tie it together and provide
> ways to do things and then the Linux supporting companies that do
> FOSS like KDE, LibreOffice, Gnome, Mozilla. etc. ad lib.
>
>>
>>
>>>      Oracle can continue to use the previously
>>> FOSS Red Hat Source Code and develop it into its
>>> own Oracular Linux.
>
>     Read the last two issues of Distrowatch.
> SUZE has chimed in as well and European user of RH Source
> are adding some remarks.

SUSE/OpenSUSE ... quit using them. First they dumbed-down
the distros, now they're caught in the IBM trap.

Such a pity, I used to rec OpenSUSE as a "Cadillac" distro.
Now I won't waste a minute with it. After some fooling
around with VERY crude old versions of Slack I found
SUSE on a shelf at WalMart or something. You could even
get Oracle DB for it, cheap. It was GOOD and I used it
widely for 20+ years. Now - CRAP.

If it derives from RHEL, just DON'T. Deb/Arch/Slack and
some 'independents' are calling ... put your effort THERE.

Hmmmm ... recently came across some articles detailing how
Plan-9 was ported to an IBM super/cluster/distributed
mainframe environment. P9 kinda sounds like joke but a
lot of $$$ went into it - it's MEANT for what RHEL claims
as its strengths (but's FREE). Some aspects are a bit
behind the curve ... but, with a little enthusiasm, that
could all be fixed. It's Unix-ish enough to not be a
total stranger.

STILL wish someone would do some spiffing and make a
modern VMS system. VMS was WAY ahead of the curve in
its day and would be a good launching point for an
update. Bonus, it was writ when resources were kind of
short, so the core code is writ TIGHT. Still have my
3" thick small-print VMS manual ....

On 7/17/23 11:14 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 7/17/23 15:10, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 36J.955 <36J955@qfxw6.net> wrote:
>>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>>> OL and RHEL.
>>
>> RHEL seems to have become an industry standard for the "cloud
>> computing" industry. Oracle Linux is default for their Oracle Cloud
>> VPSs. In Amazon Web Services land they've got "Amazon Linux",
>> which Wikipedia says "is largely binary compatible with Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux", so probably a similar thing to Oracle Linux. In
>> Microsoft land, they've got Microsoft's "CBL-Mariner" Linux distro,
>> for which Wikipedia says "Updates are offered either as RPM
>> packages or as complete disk images", so they've at least borrowed
>> Red Hat's package format as well, if not more.
>>
>> Maybe IBM just doesn't want to be developing an industry standard
>> Linux distro. It's a bit like the IBM PC - they develop the
>> standard and then other business make copies that everyone buys
>> instead of their models.
>>
>
>     IBM should have not bought Red Hat then.  It was a badly considered
> move.  Just like the IBC PC and the PC Jr.  No one
> copied Junior it was such a bad idea.

The original IBM-PC was not ruined because it was BAD, but
because the laws allowed Compaq to sell a "clone" system.
That killed the profits. The "Jr" was a last gasp, but
it just wasn't good/cheap enough. IBM was always best
at "big iron" and that's where it returned.

As for the IBM/RHEL deal ... I'm gonna say it WAS a good
investment. People like Linux and RHEL was providing a
lot of add-ons that big/cloud/distributed users really
like. RHEL also offers a lot of SUPPORT. IBM will fold
all this into its own "Linux" for its mainframes.

>  But they copied the archetecturee
> of the PC can soon we had armies of clones. 8088 clones.  But the
> technology advanced.  It seemed very slow at the time. But it only took
> the x86 line abut 10 years to catch up to the Motorola 68060.

The Intel line DID catch up pretty quickly - but the 68000 family
was STILL "nicer" :-) I say this as someone who used to do a fair
amount of ASM ... MUCH smoother on the 68K's

Anyway, Motorola gave up. Not 100% sure the guts of the 68Ks
even COULD have incorporated all the modern speed tricks.
The 68K's were a fair time ... now past. The SAGE PCs were
pure bliss ....

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:

> 36J.955 <36J955@qfxw6.net> wrote:
>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>> OL and RHEL.
>
> RHEL seems to have become an industry standard for the "cloud
> computing" industry. Oracle Linux is default for their Oracle Cloud
> VPSs. In Amazon Web Services land they've got "Amazon Linux",
> which Wikipedia says "is largely binary compatible with Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux", so probably a similar thing to Oracle Linux. In
> Microsoft land, they've got Microsoft's "CBL-Mariner" Linux distro,
> for which Wikipedia says "Updates are offered either as RPM
> packages or as complete disk images", so they've at least borrowed
> Red Hat's package format as well, if not more.

I've seen far more Ubuntu in cloud environments than RHEL. My experience
is perhaps limited, but this is what I've seen in several dozen
company's AWS and Azure environments.

>
> Maybe IBM just doesn't want to be developing an industry standard
> Linux distro. It's a bit like the IBM PC - they develop the
> standard and then other business make copies that everyone buys
> instead of their models.

IBM is motivated by making money. I don't think they let politics or
philosophy guide their thinking. They just want to squeeze the maximum
amount of money out of their customers that they can.

Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>> 36J.955 <36J955@qfxw6.net> wrote:
>>> "Oracle" Linux is just RHEL for all intents and
>>> purposes. I've run it recently, look and feel
>>> and packages are just like Centos/RHEL. I'm
>>> surprised a company like Oracle wouldn't have
>>> had a completely unique Linux. There seems to
>>> be more diff between Ubuntu and Deb than
>>> OL and RHEL.
>>
>> RHEL seems to have become an industry standard for the "cloud
>> computing" industry. Oracle Linux is default for their Oracle Cloud
>> VPSs. In Amazon Web Services land they've got "Amazon Linux",
>> which Wikipedia says "is largely binary compatible with Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux", so probably a similar thing to Oracle Linux. In
>> Microsoft land, they've got Microsoft's "CBL-Mariner" Linux distro,
>> for which Wikipedia says "Updates are offered either as RPM
>> packages or as complete disk images", so they've at least borrowed
>> Red Hat's package format as well, if not more.
>
> I've seen far more Ubuntu in cloud environments than RHEL. My experience
> is perhaps limited, but this is what I've seen in several dozen
> company's AWS and Azure environments.

That's sensible, but I expect all the cloud providers try to
steer their users towards their own distros, which are in turn
RHEL-based. If nothing else, it's probably a good way of locking
in the less careful customers who select the default distro and
then face trouble moving to a different cloud provider later.

>> Maybe IBM just doesn't want to be developing an industry standard
>> Linux distro. It's a bit like the IBM PC - they develop the
>> standard and then other business make copies that everyone buys
>> instead of their models.
>
> IBM is motivated by making money. I don't think they let politics or
> philosophy guide their thinking. They just want to squeeze the maximum
> amount of money out of their customers that they can.

The philosophy is about making money. If users of RHEL-based
distros aren't willing to switch to a slightly different
environment, or risk problems with using RPM packages published by
software companies, it would surely be better for IBM if they _had_
to use their (Red Hat's) distro, rather than have the option of
using fully compatible distros from Oracle and others.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:06:15 -0400, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> The philosophy is about making money. If users of RHEL-based
> distros aren't willing to switch to a slightly different
> environment, or risk problems with using RPM packages published by
> software companies, it would surely be better for IBM if they _had_
> to use their (Red Hat's) distro, rather than have the option of
> using fully compatible distros from Oracle and others.

Don't assume that Redhat forks are impacted. They are not, unless they try
to stay in sync with Redhat.

Mageia forked from Mandrake/Mandriva which forked from redhat. Mageia is not
affected as we don't use Redhat's installer or other custom redhat packages.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:06:15 -0400, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> The philosophy is about making money. If users of RHEL-based
>> distros aren't willing to switch to a slightly different
>> environment, or risk problems with using RPM packages published by
>> software companies, it would surely be better for IBM if they _had_
>> to use their (Red Hat's) distro, rather than have the option of
>> using fully compatible distros from Oracle and others.
>
> Don't assume that Redhat forks are impacted. They are not, unless they try
> to stay in sync with Redhat.
>
> Mageia forked from Mandrake/Mandriva which forked from redhat. Mageia is not
> affected as we don't use Redhat's installer or other custom redhat packages.

But then, presumably, Mageia can't have been claiming compatibility
with RHEL so far, like Oracle Linux and others have been.

My point is that a user of a RHEL-compatible distro might be
worried about the RPM packages that a software company provides
breaking due to a change in RHEL which wasn't integrated into the
distro they're using. Or other similar issues. Therefore they might
switch to using RHEL instead of the compatible distro that they
were using before.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 7/18/23 3:53 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> In the latest Distrowatch weekly newsletter
> at <https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20230717#news>
>
> is an interesting addition to the IBM/RG kerfuffle.
>
>> In the wake of Red Hat cutting off public access to their Red Hat
>> Enterprise Linux (RHEL) source code,
>> SUSE has announced the company is making a fork of RHEL. "A key
>> priority is to continue to provide choice for customers.

Judging by how OpenSUSE dumbed-down their packages
I don't feel as blissed as you do.

SUSE was my first "Real Linux" back in the day, a huge
leap over the Slack distros you found on the shelves.
I did a lot with SUSE/OpenSUSE over the years - but in
the past year or so I had to abandon it.

Anyway, we'll see. Expect it to take a year or two.
Can SUSE/OpenSUSE chart a robust direction independent
from RHEL or not ?

I'd REALLY like to see a return to the "Cadillac" distro
stuff of a few years ago.

On 7/20/23 10:08 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 19:06:15 -0400, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>>> The philosophy is about making money. If users of RHEL-based
>>> distros aren't willing to switch to a slightly different
>>> environment, or risk problems with using RPM packages published by
>>> software companies, it would surely be better for IBM if they _had_
>>> to use their (Red Hat's) distro, rather than have the option of
>>> using fully compatible distros from Oracle and others.
>>
>> Don't assume that Redhat forks are impacted. They are not, unless they try
>> to stay in sync with Redhat.
>>
>> Mageia forked from Mandrake/Mandriva which forked from redhat. Mageia is not
>> affected as we don't use Redhat's installer or other custom redhat packages.
>
> But then, presumably, Mageia can't have been claiming compatibility
> with RHEL so far, like Oracle Linux and others have been.
>
> My point is that a user of a RHEL-compatible distro might be
> worried about the RPM packages that a software company provides
> breaking due to a change in RHEL which wasn't integrated into the
> distro they're using. Or other similar issues. Therefore they might
> switch to using RHEL instead of the compatible distro that they
> were using before.

IBM has CURSED any RHEL branches. FORGET them. If it
doesn't make IBM a profit then it AIN'T HAPPENING.

Someone here said SUSE was gonna make a try at a
RHEL-independent distro. We'll see.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 22:08:38 -0400, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> But then, presumably, Mageia can't have been claiming compatibility
> with RHEL so far, like Oracle Linux and others have been.

> My point is that a user of a RHEL-compatible distro might be
> worried about the RPM packages that a software company provides
> breaking due to a change in RHEL which wasn't integrated into the
> distro they're using. Or other similar issues. Therefore they might
> switch to using RHEL instead of the compatible distro that they
> were using before.

We've never claimed to be compatible. Some Fedora packages do work when installed
in a Mageia installation, but others (probably most) can't be installed due to
differences in how the two distributions name library and other packages.

Regards, Dave Hodgins