This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: RE: redhat is not linux? From: Uncle Meat <kcsmart@worldinter.net> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 04:48:02 -0500 (CDT) On 08-May-00 int27h opined: > Well, Long time ago I heard that rh don't have the same > kernel like the rest linux distro, and just days ago i got > a www.redhatisnotlinux.org mentioning that rh has gone to > be an independent os using gnu distro? comments? RH uses a linux kernel with the parameters set the way they feel best suits their targeted audience. The kernel makes it linux. The ability to install the same source, change what they did with it, recompile it and use with the remainder of their distribution tis in the spirit of Linux and in line with the way Linus wants to keep it. Therefore, RH is distributing a package containing Linux. The source is included (in offical releases, anyway) and can be modified to perform differently than the original product. If by 'not linux' one means the releases contain some tools which they invented and still own, take a look at Debian, Corel, TurboLinux, SuSE and almost all of the others. They do the precise same thing. Haven't been to the above site and frankly not interested. Likely written by a 'Doze or Not Trustworthy (NT) guy, or possibly by someone who automatically sees a sinister plot in RH getting themselves listed on the stock exchange. === Subject: Re: redhat is not linux? From: Hyung Kim <spok_1@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 03:33:50 -0700 (PDT) I had RH 6.1 with kernel 2.2.12. I just recompiled kernel 2.2.14 from SuSE and intalled it into my RH system. Everything works fine, including all my modules and networking services. === Subject: RE: redhat is not linux? From: Martin Bartlett <martin@nitram.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 10:22:53 +0000 (/etc/localtime) On 08-May-00 int27h opined: > Well, Long time ago I heard that rh don't have the same kernel like the > rest > linux distro, and just days ago i got a www.redhatisnotlinux.org > mentioning that rh has gone to be an independent os using gnu distro? > > comments? Redhat tend to use kernels that are patched somewhat differently from the 'real' ones. By that I mean that in 5.2, 6.0 and 6.1 I found that the latest patches in the RedHat kernel were NOT published patches. By THAT I mean the Linus (or whoever) had yet to integrate the patches into the 'real' kernel. When they DID get integrated, they were slightly differently done. So what? Well it makes applying a later patch from ftp.kernel.org a real bear! BUT you want proof its 'Linux' (that is, that the rest of RedHat is able to run on a standard Linux kernel) - I deleted the RedHat Kernel sources, downloaded the kernel.org sources, configured as I wanted, recompiled and 'lilo'd. Worked with no problems what-so-ever! And patching is now SO much easier! === Subject: Re: Re: kernel upgrades missing options From: Stephen King <unicorn@crazedartist.com> Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:27:48 -0700 (PDT) On Sun, 21 May 2000, Victor R. Cardona wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 04:36:45PM -0700, Stephen King wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I was just recompiling a new kernel (2.2.15) and found that there are a few > > options that 2.2.14 had that are missing here. Mostly I'm looking for the > > network config option CONFIG_NET_SCHED. Is there any reason why this might > > be? I could go back and use 2.2.14, but I'd like to find out why this is > > missing certain network config options. > > I should say that the 2.2.14 came with Redhat6.2 and the 2.2.15 is a kernel > > I got from a kernel mirror site. > Where you got the kernel really shouldn't matter. >I too noticed that there are some options missing. >The Power down on shutdown option is no longer included for some reason. >Oh wel, as long as you don't have a dire need to upgrade, I guess it's >ok. Yes, I didn't think that where I got should matter either, but then thought that maybe RedHat added items in with their distro that wasn't in the standard kernel releases. I looked for info on the changes to this kernel and nothing was mentioned about removing the network items I'm looking for. I suppose it's back to 2.2.14 for me then, but I still feel I must be missing something because surely this is a backward step for the kernel? These options are brought back in the 2.3.x kernels for iptables, so why are they removed at this stage? For those interested (and if anyone has any ideas), I'm trying to set up a bandwidth management system, using IPROUTE2 to filter/queue etc. I just haven't got it to work as yet and without these options I'm not sure I can. === Subject: Re: kernel upgrades missing options From: Prentice <pbisbal@pppl.gov> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:01:24 -0400 > > On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 04:36:45PM -0700, Stephen King wrote: > > > I was just recompiling a new kernel (2.2.15) and found > > > that there are a few options that 2.2.14 had that are > > > missing here. Mostly I'm looking for the network > > > config option CONFIG_NET_SCHED. Is there any reason > > > why this might be? I could go back and use 2.2.14, > > > but I'd like to find out why this is missing certain > > > network config options. I should say that the 2.2.14 > > > came with Redhat6.2 and the 2.2.15 is a kernel I got > > > from a kernel mirror site. > On Sun, 21 May 2000, Victor R. Cardona wrote: > > > Where you got the kernel really shouldn't matter. I too noticed that there > > are some options missing. The Power down on shutdown option is no longer > > included for some reason. Oh wel, as long as you don't have a dire need to > > upgrade, I guess it's ok. Ellertson wrote: > Where you got the kernel does matter. RedHat adds some patches to their > kernels that havn't made it into the official stable kernels yet. 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. 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." 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 : ). === Subject: Re: Re: kernel upgrades missing options From: Stephen King <unicorn@crazedartist.com> Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:27:48 -0700 (PDT) On Sun, 21 May 2000, Victor R. Cardona wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 04:36:45PM -0700, Stephen King wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I was just recompiling a new kernel (2.2.15) and found that there are a few > > options that 2.2.14 had that are missing here. Mostly I'm looking for the > > network config option CONFIG_NET_SCHED. Is there any reason why this might > > be? I could go back and use 2.2.14, but I'd like to find out why this is > > missing certain network config options. > > I should say that the 2.2.14 came with Redhat6.2 and the 2.2.15 is a kernel > > I got from a kernel mirror site. > Where you got the kernel really shouldn't matter. >I too noticed that there are some options missing. >The Power down on shutdown option is no longer included for some reason. >Oh wel, as long as you don't have a dire need to upgrade, I guess it's >ok. Yes, I didn't think that where I got should matter either, but then thought that maybe RedHat added items in with their distro that wasn't in the standard kernel releases. I looked for info on the changes to this kernel and nothing was mentioned about removing the network items I'm looking for. I suppose it's back to 2.2.14 for me then, but I still feel I must be missing something because surely this is a backward step for the kernel? These options are brought back in the 2.3.x kernels for iptables, so why are they removed at this stage? For those interested (and if anyone has any ideas), I'm trying to set up a bandwidth management system, using IPROUTE2 to filter/queue etc. I just haven't got it to work as yet and without these options I'm not sure I can. === Subject: RE: redhat is not linux? From: "Rev. David P. Giffen" <rcoyote@execpc.com> Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:11:54 -0500 Martin Bartlett [mailto:martin@nitram.demon.co.uk] wrote: > On 08-May-00 int27h opined: > > Well, Long time ago I heard that rh don't have the same kernel like the > > rest > > linux distro, and just days ago i got a www.redhatisnotlinux.org > > mentioning that rh has gone to be an independent os using gnu distro? > > > > comments? > > Redhat tend to use kernels that are patched somewhat differently from the > 'real' ones. By that I mean that in 5.2, 6.0 and 6.1 I found that the > latest patches in the RedHat kernel were NOT published patches. By THAT I > mean the Linus (or whoever) had yet to integrate the patches into the > 'real' kernel. When they DID get integrated, they were slightly > differently done. > > So what? > > Well it makes applying a later patch from ftp.kernel.org a real bear! > > BUT you want proof its 'Linux' (that is, that the rest of RedHat is able > to run on a standard Linux kernel) - I deleted the RedHat Kernel sources, > downloaded the kernel.org sources, configured as I wanted, recompiled and > 'lilo'd. Worked with no problems what-so-ever! And patching is now SO much > easier! The person you are thinking of is Alan Cox. Linus Torvalds handed the Linux maintenance over to him. Alan works for Red Hat. So it's not surprising that Red Hat has patches before they go out officially. The ok form Linus still has to be made before a patch becomes official. Check out June 200 of _Linux Journal They have a interesting article called "We Talk to Everybody" It's kinda of a Who's Who in the Linux world. ===