http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8734

Seems German copyright law is a bit different than the USA's "owned for eternity" type (like with Mickey Mouse).

James

It almost seems wrong that a frivolous lawsuit like this isn't being filed by an American. Looks like our get rich quick schemes are catching on! ;)

Yeah, that's true. Looks like the term "Open Source" may be coming up too...any takers? hehe...

James

Well apparently us ill bred and uneducated greed mongering Americans must be so bent on obtaining copyrights for everything, disregarding anything to the public that we just can't seem to hold anything sacred huh? LOL Your obviously so misinformed on America and Americans that only a euro trash moron who holds his government and economic policies in such high regards that he/ she forgets that the majority of Linux distros that are freely downloadable were and are maintained by Americans. EX: Debian, Slackware, Caldera, etc.. Although Redhat maybe a pay for version of Linux, so is SuSE the Euro standard. So what’s the point of your comment except to allow the world to acknowledge your ignorance..well if so..NOD

You are a complete and total moron. Are you really that dense? Should I have included a "tongue-in-cheek" or "sarcasm" tag for you? I'm imagining that the loud, roaring, woosh sound that went over your head as you read this precluded any actual perception of what was written. If you'll notice, I said "our get rich quick schemes." Do you detect the subtle use of a possessive pronoun? I know it went by fast, but it's there. In case you haven't had an English class in your life (which I'm beginning to wonder), that would insinuate that I am American. Retard.

On the contrary, his post is right on the dot.

American's sue whenever they get the chance.

"Oh, my coffee is too hot, it burned me."
"Oh, I'm gonna sue McDonalds and Burger King for having food that made me obese."

Etc....

Yes, I am an American.

We certainly can't be expected to work hard for a living can we? ;)

I will never, in a million years, understand the McDonald's lawsuit. "It's too hot, it burned me, you owe me money."

I was in a Chinese restaurant when a lady burned the roof of her mouth on some egg drop soup. I later found out from the owner that they were being sued because it was "too hot."

What the hell is wrong with people? They have no sense of responsiblity and common sense. They should be counter-sued for just being plain stupid, which in turn causes mental anguish to those around them.

Sorry. A little off-topic. :)

It's not illegal, as the code is open source and distributed freely. Type 'uname -a' at a prompt to see what version you are running. Also, the login prompt should say Shrike instead of Phoebe.

Anyone have more mirrors? I can't seem to get a download started...

Extra source.

Our company has a account with Redhat but their server has been so slammed with people downloading RedHat 9.0 that we've been unable to download the ISO images without it timing out. I was looking for the file names on www.filemirrors.com and found it already being mirrored on several other sites besides redhat. downloading all three images right now. :)

I hope Shrike is a good as everyone says that it is.

The file names are:

MD5SUMS-ftp.md5
shrike-i386-disc1.iso
shrike-i386-disc2.iso
shrike-i386-disc3.iso

Thanks for the site, it's alot better than the vendors webpage.

No problemo I've found a lot of other hard to download files on the filemirrors.com website.

:)

We're trying RH 9.0 out on a unused Dual 700MHz Xeon cpu system right now to determine how well it is going to work before we upgrade all of our other Redhat Servers to it.

another small step towards looking like a microsoft OS... strange how so many linux distributions want to look like windows if windows is such a bad product.

Which part looks like Windows? The fact that it has a GUI?

It leaves people with a default that is easy to use and most people can understand without ever having used it before. A lot of people then take it and customize it to their work habits, either through cosmetic changes are another window manager. It all has to start somewhere. It doesn't make sense to have something completely wild that people won't be able to use without customizing.

Nothing wrong with looking and working like Windows - the point is that the design of the OS is totally different - so stop thinking Red Hat is trying to create another Windows.

In fact, for Linux to become the OS of choice, it needs to shake the myth that it is not user friendly. Those who feel otherwise, stick to servers.

Wasn't Microsoft just trying to look like Apple who was trying to look like Palo Alto? Where will it all end?

I wish open source would stop mimicking microsoft. But one can look at this from both sides. I just hope the registry never reaches linux :-P

Let's see - Start Menu, Taskbar, Quick Launch buttons, an explorer like file manager, right-click context menus, floating window toolbars (as opposed to the fixed toolbar in OS X),... Should I go on. Even the most fanatical of Linux user would acknowledge that KDE (which Blue Curve is based on) resembles Windows much more than OS X.

Let's see - Start Menu, Taskbar, Quick Launch buttons, an explorer like file manager, right-click context menus, floating window toolbars (as opposed to the fixed toolbar in OS X),... Should I go on. Even the most fanatical of Linux user would acknowledge that KDE (which Blue Curve is based on) resembles Windows much more than OS X.

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Again. The fact that it has a GUI? That's about where it stops.

Start Menu, Taskbar, Quick Launch -- These, in their proper sense, are Windows-branded items, but the concept is not owned by Microsoft. They merely placed a label on a function that's been around a lot longer than Windows 95. Check out some of the older Unix window managers. They did the same type of thing. I played with a very similar type of bar along the right side of my screen on a Sun SPARCstation around 1993. I even had icons on my desktop (gasp!!!). I'm fairly certain that was probably stolen from something else as well. Microsoft did not innovate these behaviors. They brought it to the masses. The price tag on Sun workstations was/are not exactly what most call entry-level.

Right-click menus? You mean like all of the pop-up options I received from any of the 3 buttons I had on the optical mouse on that same Sun workstation 10 years ago? Or did Microsoft invent the optical mouse too?

And how on Earth is Bluecurve based on KDE? That doesn't even make sense.

I would agree that a default KDE configuration does closely resemble Windows. Once again, as mentioned earlier, you have to start somewhere. There's no point in making some wild and radically different user interface that makes sense to absolutely nobody. A lot of people will take the default and completely customize it to fit their own working habits. I do. You might not even recognize it afterwards.

I'm not sure where the OS X argument came from. I never claimed any of them tried to mimic OS X. Beyond that, I can't comment on OS X, since the extent of my exposure to it was playing with it while it was still in beta and then poking it a couple of times at CompUSA after it was released.

- Start Menu is definetely a copy.
- Taskbar is more than likely a copy - although there may have been a Window Manager with a taskbar way before Windows had it.
- Quick Launch Buttons (on the Taskbar) more than likely a copy.
- Explorer-Like file manager most likely a copy.
- Right Click context menu's? - You are kidding right! Those have been around for a lot longer than Windows has ever had them.
- Floating Toolbars - Once again you've got to be kidding here! They've been around for years before Windows.

I don't see your point? KDE, just one of many window managers available is "Windows'ish"... so what? Everyone's borrowed ideas from everyone else including Windows.

Actually he's wrong. According to Red Hat, Bluecurve is based on GNOME, not KDE. FYI...

Bluecurve is a set of theme engines, one for GNOME and one for KDE.

Let me preface this by saying that if you enjoy using Red Hat's product, consider supporting them by either buying a boxed set or RHN access. I usually end up buying 1 boxed set out of every major release and download the rest.

Having said that, you can also download the ISOs for free here (before April 7):
http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/rh9.html

I downloaded, but I get an error at the end that states connection refused 10061???

I'm not sure what that error results from. Any chance you have some sort of firewall that could be blocking in/out-bound traffic related to it?

I'm sure the site will be slow as it gets hammered, but this site is also offering them:
http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/pub/iso-images/Redhat/9.0/

This is the smoothest Linux I have ever seen, it leaves 8.0 in the dirt. All of the new features definately warrant incrementing the major number. It seems like fluff at first, but once I played with it I have to agree completely with their decision. :-) GOOD STUFF, GO GET IT!

I agree. They've made some major steps forward.

One warning though.

RedHat has continued their trend of trying to add value by including numerous patches to the kernel that are not actually part of the 2.4.x kernel tree (most of them are backports of experimnetal features fromt he 2.5.x kernel tree)

While this does provide features and funtionality that the 2.4.20 kernel doesn't have....it also can cause serious compatibility issues with thrid party software as a result. Especially since RedHat didn't change the kernel version number. (Many software packages check the version number to determine which structures will match the kernel. RedHat uses many 2.5.x structures, but kept the 2.4.20 version number)

In most cases it's not a problem, and since RedHat is the market leader, most developers/vendors will modify their software to specifically accomodate the RedHat 9 kernel. But still wanted to toss the warning out for those who might wonder why software that works with the 2.4.20 linux kernel doesn't work with RedHat 9. Basically, even though RedHat labels the kernel as 2.4.20, it's really a custom kernel that was once based on 2.4.20, but is now quite different from it.

(Of course this has been true for several releases now, it's just been even more pronounced with RH8 and 9)

"(Many software packages check the version number to determine which structures will match the kernel. RedHat uses many 2.5.x structures, but kept the 2.4.20 version number)"

Keep in mind that Red Hat does not have any authority to change kernel version numbers. This is why they resort to things like 2.4.20-18 (2.4.21 is still in the -pre stages), etc. They really can't invent a kernel version that drifts away from the kernel.org releases. And nobody in their right mind would purchase a system that was blatantly running and advertising use of a development kernel branch (2.5.x).

I agree. I had to compile wine from the source to get it working today, as all RPMS are broken on RH9. I'm sure there will be more instances of this in the next few days, always install on a test box first. ;-)

This is a good point to make. It's also a reason why they went from 8.0 to 9. Their general rule of them is to increment the major release when there is a break in compatibility. Expect that several things will not work on 9 that worked on 8.0.

ERR

All *RedHat 8.0 WINE RPM'S are currently broken on 9*.. There are work arounds, but rebuilding the source works best IMHO.

Dangit. I meant rule of thumb.

RH9 also broke User Mode Linux. I haven't tried recompiling it from the source yet, though.

It's not broken, it just wasn't included. Any way you look at it unless you run 2.5.x you'll need to use the backported patch. I expect that it won't patch cleanly though.

"And nobody in their right mind would purchase a system that was blatantly running and advertising use of a development kernel branch (2.5.x)."

That right there is my biggest complaint about RedHat lately. They know that people won't consider their distribution to be stable if they use a development tree kernel (2.5.x) but they freely backport experimental patches and changes fromt he 2.5.x tree and use them in their "stable, production" kernel without telling their customers.

I think they shoudl at leats offer as an installation option: "Do you want the stable, widely tested 2.4.20 kernel, or a custom RedHat kernel that may have better performance and features, but includes less tested experimental patches?"

Because right now you get the less stable experimental one....but based on version number they lead customers into thinking that it's the widely tested stable one.

Not a huge deal, just a little misleading to customers I think.

I would have to agree with you. Some of these kernel revisions basically made my machines more unstable. I've encountered more hardware-related bumps than expected. I try to regularly test their Rawhide kernels at home and can pretty much pick out where major changes have occurred. The 2.4.20-18(?? -- don't remember off the top of my head) shipping with RHL 9 caused more hardware issues than did the 2.4.18 from RHL 8.0 on the same server/hardware.

Not that I plan on abandoning RHL, but just for the heck of it I downloaded the 9.0 release of Slackware to play around with. I haven't used Slack since about 1997, so maybe it's just nostalgia talking, but it was fun spending 3 straight days modifying config files by hand for an unsupported video card and monitor. :)

so far version 9.0 is working very smoothly on our test server at work, and on my AMD Athlon XP 1800 desktop system, and on our Admin's Dell Pentium 4 laptop and on our Perl Programmer's Dell Pentium 3 laptop.

I love how crisp the fonts look in this version and how smoothly everything runs both at the command prompt and in the GUI interface. Nice Job Redhat!!