after perusing various NG's via Google, I surmise:

Redhat (8) is most appropriate for a business

Mandrake (9?) is most appropriate for a home general use PC (eg: in lieu
of Windohs)?

Is that a reasonable generalization?

My use will mainly be: Web/usenet/e-mail, office-s/w (word-prox,
spreadsheet, presentations, dB), Scanning/editing/printing 35mm film)

Thanks,
Alan.

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

]Redhat (8) is most appropriate for a business

Redhat with its new anti-GPL model is ONLY good for business, and even
then I have no idea why a business would buy into their model.


]Mandrake (9?) is most appropriate for a home general use PC (eg: in lieu
]of Windohs)?

It is just as appropriate for business, or home pc.

Bill Unruh wrote:
anti-GPL? where are you getting that?

Jason Profitt wrote:

Apparently, some people have never bothered to actually read the GPL. They
conclude (with no basis of fact) that selling software is against the GPL.
However, if you do read the GPL and the FAQ that the FSF provides, it
explains that as long as you follow the terms of the GPL, you can charge
whatever you want for the software.

Some people think they're always entitled to something for nothing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-03-02, Jason Profitt <profitt.7@osu.edu> wrote:
See for example (sorry for the long line)

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...r%3D%26hl%3Den

in which Bill puts an interesting spin on the GPL.

- --keith

- --
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAQ/8MhVcNCxZ5ID8RAsUyAJ4yBO6dcSH+LxUy6remPB+JMt3xKACe L+ua
Hl/R6kQAh1akEjJyaHhfCNM=
=wEFe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 18:34:06 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

In my opinion, no...What is "appropriate" is much too dependant on
individual factors.
Redhat ( and Suse ) are probably the most popular in business
environments. But this probably has more to do with marketing than
it does with what's "appropriate". Redhat's "Enterprise" versions have a
longer support cycle than other distributions, which can be very
important to a business, but it's certainly not the only factor to
consider.

Mandrake is one of the most popular distributions for "home" use, mostly
due to the perception that it's easy for the beginner. But the most
"appropriate" distribution is the one you're most comfortable with.

Almost any distribution can handle these tasks. Only you can decide which
one best fits your needs.

--
- Matt -

Matt H <no@email.invalid> writes:

]Jason Profitt wrote:

]> Bill Unruh wrote:
]>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:
]>>
]>> ]Redhat (8) is most appropriate for a business
]>>
]>> Redhat with its new anti-GPL model is ONLY good for business, and even
]>> then I have no idea why a business would buy into their model.
]>>
]>>
]>
]> anti-GPL? where are you getting that?

]Apparently, some people have never bothered to actually read the GPL. They
]conclude (with no basis of fact) that selling software is against the GPL.
]However, if you do read the GPL and the FAQ that the FSF provides, it
]explains that as long as you follow the terms of the GPL, you can charge
]whatever you want for the software.

]Some people think they're always entitled to something for nothing.

Some people put arguments in other people's mouths and assume that they
can then attack that straw man. I have no objection to REdhat selling
their version of the Linux. I do have objections to their trying to use
trademark law to make an end run around the GPL. They claim that despite
the GPL you are not allowed to copy their version without removing all
of their trademarks, removal of which may make the system inoperative.
The GPL states that any one receiving a GPl work or a derived work
therefrom MUST be given permission to make copies of that work. Not told
that that they can only copy it if they find and remove all trademarks
which may destroy the thing they are copying. Not told that they must
buy one copy for each computer and told that Redhat has the right to
come to your business of home to see if you have violated this.

The whole purpose of the GPL is to allow you to make copies of works and
of derived works.
As a further argument the distribution as a whole is a work under
copyright (ie is more than a "mere collection") and is then also
clearly a derived work of the kernel. Thus the distribution itself is under GPL.

Those are the arguments, nothing about "Free" or "something for
nothing".

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:41:03 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:

This again?

Cite #1 - http://www.livejournal.com/users/nugget/42813.html

jeran writes:

I think you're forgetting that that license agreement wasn't written for
techies. It was written for PHBs to whom the concept of "we can install
as many copies as we want, regardless of licenses" is totally alien and
makes them very uncomfortable. The license is written in terms the PHBs
like: you can install as many copies as you have licenses for, if you
want more copies you buy more licenses. Since RHAS contains more than
just GPL'd software (services, updates, support, non-GPL'd software are
also included in what you're buying), they're entirely entitled to sell
the whole thing under the terms they've written. They're just giving the
PHBs what they want.

If you want, you can go in, extract just the GPL'd software parts, roll
your own ISOs and ignore the RHAS license from that point on. In fact, if
you read the EULA, it specifically says you should review the GPL terms
and that nothing in the RHAS license limits your rights under the GPL.
Techies are expected to be smart enough to read that as the loophole big
enough to drive a semi rig through that it's meant to be, while still
keeping it in language that won't short-circuit a PHB's brain with
concepts that just don't exist in their world.

Cite #2 - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....prietarySystem

RMS, who should be more concerned than anyone about this issue, writes:

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system.
Can I do this?

You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system.
The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could
incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have
the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too.

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version
of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the
program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This
is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get
the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back
improvements that they make.

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
single program.

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about
this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the
free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection.

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of"
a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be
uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if
they know that what they have received is a free program plus another
program, side by side, their rights will be clear.

C'mon, it should be blindingly obvious that the arm's-length concept
extends to Red Hat's non-GPL artwork. Proof: you can replace it with
other artwork, and the new combination works just fine (Pink Tie, White
Box, etc.).

Alan Browne wrote:
Red Hat Linux 8 is obsolete and unsupported. It's not appropriate for
anything.

--
Markku Kolkka
markku.kolkka@iki.fi

I think it was Alan Browne who said:

When you say "home" use I think Lycoris and Xandros and maybe even Lindows
(despite all the reasons I *don't* think Lindows), but I don't think
Mandrake. But it really depends on what kind of "home" user you are (and
anyone else in your home is).

F.T.
--
"Which port is it that you need to block [to make Windows secure]?"
"The port where the power cord goes into the computer."
-From a Slashdot discussion

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-03-02, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:

Yellow Dog....

- --keith

- --
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFARLcshVcNCxZ5ID8RAm6wAJwP0JGAmDd8CfWaZoXLJ1 tk/UT8+gCfbEU1
MqzZdbvOF2bMoyFwkOBi6GQ=
=kY3d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fred Tourette wrote:

I was a programmer from about 20 to about 10 years ago (OS: HP-DOS
variants, VAX-VMS, microprocessors in real-time environments, etc.
(Fortran, Pascal, assemble, Ada), but little contact with UNIX or C),
then went on to other things.

I'll be the only 'user' at home (I'll have a guest account for anyone
who wants to check the weather or hotmail...)
I may be writing some applications in C for data mining, but that's
secondary if I find a good dB application and work within that.

Cheers,
Alan

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
Because most commercial apps only support exactly two distro:
SuSE/RH enterprise versions

Because many hw vendor, perhaps yours too, only support two distro:
SuSE/RH enterprise versions

So, it leaves you exactly two distro, looking at the EULA for
SuSE enterprise versions, it doesn't look that different.

You get 5 years support/patches for those distro, consumer
distro support will fade out much sooner.

- --
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of spam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAROVgAkPEju3Se5QRAkmQAJkBzu4jWFZznLNurdHUya JZAGVpCQCggeGe
TZzNNE7R8LgglHWIx73BUww=
=jqIZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
]Hash: SHA1

]Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
]> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> writes:

]> ]Redhat (8) is most appropriate for a business

]> Redhat with its new anti-GPL model is ONLY good for business, and even
]> then I have no idea why a business would buy into their model.

]Because most commercial apps only support exactly two distro:
]SuSE/RH enterprise versions

Except that there is not much difference between Redhat and Mandrake.
And what do those commercial apps mean by "support"?


]Because many hw vendor, perhaps yours too, only support two distro:
]SuSE/RH enterprise versions


This is even more weird, since it is the kernel that they support not
redhat or SUSE.


]So, it leaves you exactly two distro, looking at the EULA for
]SuSE enterprise versions, it doesn't look that different.

]You get 5 years support/patches for those distro, consumer
]distro support will fade out much sooner.

Yes, except Redhat does not promise 5 years support AFAIK. More like 1.

If they do that could well be a reason for going with them.

Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
: ]Because most commercial apps only support exactly two distro:
: ]SuSE/RH enterprise versions

: Except that there is not much difference between Redhat and Mandrake.
: And what do those commercial apps mean by "support"?

means that you pay them lots of $$ and they'll help you fix
problems IFF you're on a supported system. Massive beasts
like Mentor with 6-figure price tags are not something that
you want to mess with without support.
Most sentient users wouldn't jeopardize that support
by letting their preferences get in the way of good sense.


: ]Because many hw vendor, perhaps yours too, only support two distro:
: ]SuSE/RH enterprise versions


: This is even more weird, since it is the kernel that they support not
: redhat or SUSE.

Not hardly. There's a LOT more to support than a kernel- all the shared
libraries, graphics drivers, X patches, distribution details
like directory structure and so on. Think installation,
IPC, licensing, all sorts of things which must work that
are not directly related to the kernel.

Put yourself in the shoes of a vendor- how many of flavors of
Linux would _YOU_ want to gaurantee to support to your customers
who are spending large amounts for that support?
Or in the shoes of the poor support person trying to sort out
flavor xyz and some obscure problem that appears related
to some version of some shared library- and then tries
to get it fixed without busting something else on the customer's
system. Or the shoes of the QA person trying to verify code
reliability on say 100 different flavors of Linux. Not fun,
and not something virtually any vendor would want to invest in.

Hence- as previous poster stated, major vendors support
the big guys like RHE and sometimes SUSE.


Stan

--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

Bill Unruh wrote:
No, vendors (SW or HW) support a configuration. The configuration will
include libraries and utilities.



This shows you to be a troll:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/

which has


Paul

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
[..]

Hi Bill!

- From an admin point of view, there isn't much difference between
any Linux/*nix for many purposes.

Check out oracle.com/informix.com and take a look on which distro
running their products is supported.


Perhaps, from a technical point of view, but those don't have
much meaning in terms of marketing. You can try IBM/HP or any
other major hw vendor, it's very likely you'll find SuSE and
Redhat enterprise always supported, but perhaps not much else.

Even if distro xy does use the same glibc and what else, it
doesn't matter.

[..]


As someone already pointed out:

"12-18 month release cycle and five years of support for every
version."

[http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/]

Yep, one of the reasons.

BTW
You really live up to your name.


- --
Michael Heiming - RHCE (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of spam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFARRLLAkPEju3Se5QRAvDXAJ97HTQXH95oK0l7zn8JQc jw5XgqZACdFgKV
DllbOgk9LfrOHXJWDNTVBa8=
=1G9z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

]> ]You get 5 years support/patches for those distro, consumer
]> ]distro support will fade out much sooner.

]> Yes, except Redhat does not promise 5 years support AFAIK. More like 1.

]As someone already pointed out:

]"12-18 month release cycle and five years of support for every
]version."

][http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/]

]> If they do that could well be a reason for going with them.

Of course those patches are definitely "derived works" and must be
released under the GPL.


]You really live up to your name.

Probably.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Unruh <unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
[..]

Yep, you can download all patches src.rpm if you like from
updates.redhat.com via ftp.

Regards

- --
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)

Remove +SIGNS and www. if you expect an answer, sorry for
inconvenience, but I get tons of spam.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFARhx7AkPEju3Se5QRAvQAAKC3wGhngupPl6cyVMsClk egqhhVogCgyAU6
906TyrWvE9JV6Evv8VOgp7k=
=PHk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thanks all for your replies.

Have Mandrake 9.1 installed ...wrks fine. Little things need to be done
now... many, many little things....

Cheers,
Alan


Alan Browne wrote: