[Foss-cafe] Sun Sticks 'Proprietary' Label on Red Hat Linux

[James Richard Tyrer]

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On April 27, 2004 09:50, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1573433,00.asp?kc=ewnws042704dtx1k0000
>>599
>>
>>Nice to hear someone say this.
> 
> 
> nice? Schwartz's commentary on Red Hat is FUDish and innacurate. Red Hat is 
> 100% Open Source; they also follow (and help create) the LSB, Freedesktop.org 
> and other such standards. yes, they charge for support of their Enterprise 
> products, but as they EOL product other people pick up the support of it 
> which shows that it isn't a lock-in situation (as it is with Solaris, for 
> instance). Schwartz is being completely disingenuous here, not to mention 
> hypocrtical as you note next:

I believe that you did not understand what he meant by proprietary.  The 
complaint is about incompatibility.  What good is an open source version of 
Linux that is not compatible with other distros of Linux.

You have a FC1 installation on something.  Run this:

	rpm -q --whatrequires "libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.3)"

So, what would you call a distro that has GLibc that is not binary 
compatible with other Linux distros?  If 'proprietary' isn't the best 
choice of words, the point is still valid.

--
JRT