Talk:Red Hat Enterprise Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Release schedule[edit]

RHEL 4 Update 4 Release date is wrong.

Reply: The announcement from rhelv4-announce@redhat.com was sent on 11 August 06. I changed it accordingly. Riaanvn 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the beta release dates, and corrected the release date for 5.3. These dates were obtained via going back and reading the official redhat press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RHL 6.2E[edit]

I don't think RHL 6.2E should be mentionned in RHEL history. It would be more correct to say that Red Hat started to care about entreprises with this version of RHL, and thereafter made a real adapted offer to entreprises with RHEL.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5[edit]

(from: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/ ) ... Note that the AS, ES and WS variants provided by prior releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are not available for version 5. Direct replacements for all these products are provided with version 5. See the upgrade information for more details.

--Fedkad 08:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?[edit]

You can NOT download RHEL unless you buy certain subscription. Is the source code of RHEL available after you buy it? Is it legal in terms of LINUX GPL?

Yes, because the *source* is freely available (hence the clones exist). Open source does not mean free (as in beer).

Yes. All they have to do under the GPL is provide the source (either by mail for a tiny shipping cost) or online. Redhat are in fact very helpful and provide the source in SRPM form on thier FTP server, as well as with the boxed copies of the software.

Opensource does not = free.

They are perfectly allowed to charge for the compiled binary product so long as the sourcecode is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As the article says the bulk of RHEL is FOSS but there are non-free trademarks and artwork in there which must be removed to allow redistribution. Including free and non-free stuff together in a linux distro is considered to fall under the "mere aggregation" term of the GPL so it's fine in that regard. 130.88.108.187 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer (and yes, I work for Red Hat), but IMHO all free software movement (as distinct from the free culture one) is about is the freedom of the computer source code. Nobody guarantees that any artwork is guaranteed to be free. Which IMHO is the same fault by which I believe people around Debian arguing Firefox is not free (see bruhaha around IceWeasel) are wrong. Again, not speaking in the name of my employer etc. Ceplm (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?[edit]

I think you have access to the source code off the Red Hat ftp site (ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/), no need to register or anything.

Re: Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?[edit]

It should be noted that CentOS ([1]) is an non-commercial rebuild of RHEL from the source -- it simple removes the Redhat branding/artwork. Many companies who want the stability of RHEL but don't want to pay for it use CentOS instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKurtz (talkcontribs) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Desktop 4 vs. Desktop 5[edit]

Has anyone else noticed that in RHEL4 Desktop you got all the development stuff, devel libraries, gcc, emacs, autoconf, php, apache but now in RHEL5, you don't get it with Desktop you need Workstation instead? I can't find a reference for this though. Rythie 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any specific reference to what was removed between Desktop 4 and Desktop 5, but this page gives a good comparison between the Desktop variants, including stating that the Workstation Option "Includes the Red Hat Enterprise Linux software development stack". Riaanvn 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In 3 and 5 you only get dev tools with workstation. Maybe you are wrong, or 4 was a change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "RHEL"[edit]

OK, the very first line of the article says it is improper to refer to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as RHEL, as does the very first reference cited. But then the product is consistently referred to as "RHEL" throughout the rest of the article. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.162.97 (talkcontribs) 21:24, 27 February 2008

Probably because I added the reference, but didn't go throughout the article changing each RHEL reference. You are very welcome to do it yourself if you want. ~~ [Jam][talk] 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.162.97 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux is often abbreviated to RHEL, but Red Hat is now attempting to discourage this.[1]" Read the article... it seem to me that is the point of view of few people inside Red Hat and is not mandatory, I think that this line should be removed, just look the URL of Red Hat Enterprise Linux... it contains RHEL; if they don't want RHEL they should be the first to remove the RHEL from the Red Hat website. Again: Removing the use of RHEL seem to me that is the point of view of few people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.25 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's all a bit silly really. Even if RH (y'know, Red Hat) gets its knickers in a twist about it, it's not up to them what people call their product. It is well within the scope of an encyclopedia to abbreviate long terms, and repeating popular usage should be acceptable here, so long as it is introduced as such. Unless of course, this is a vanity article? --Rfsmit (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (edited --Rfsmit (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

2009-01-20 Tim Burke, Senior Director of Software Engineering with Red Hat says in a video covering key features of the newly released RHEL 5.3, "Every minor release of RHEL has an … has an evolution of power management features, so we get greener and greener." I'm not campaigning to undo 65.24.162.97's two 2008-02-27 revisions; I'm just pointing out that they – especially the first – were wasted effort. --Rfsmit (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fastest supercomputer[edit]

Doesn't the fastest supersomputer use this operating system? I think the supercomputer is owned by IBM. This might look nice in the aricle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.31 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reference to it, then it can be included. ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It says as much on the current events section of Wikipedia's main page today. Brentt (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't see the home page article, and the use of RHEL isn't sourced in the actual article. I've got a source from InformationWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/supercomputers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208402904) which says that it runs "Red Hat Linux" (which they probably meant as RHEL). ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Terms[edit]

Under Variants: People sometimes mistakenly refer to ES as "Enterprise Server". If Red Hat has not defined what the branding "ES" means, and especially considering the brand covers an enterprise server product, then it is not a mistake to assume "ES" stands for "Enterprise Server". It is an assumption. Referring to this usage as mistaken is POV. Rephrased, appropriately. --Rfsmit (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Release/Update/Version Abbreviations[edit]

Under Version_history I added "3u8" and "4u4", as these notations are very common on the web but were not mentioned here at all. It took 20 minutes on Google to find out what those meant; lots of references, but no definition. I guess in theory this general rule could be explained above, but having all of the actual abbreviations next to each would aid search engines' recall.

Also it'd be nice to see definitions or links to the various suffixes (AS, ES) and code named versions (Pensacola, etc); right now the links go to the actual geographic cities, vs. a page that talks about Red Hat's use of that city's name in their code name. I realize some Unix gurus consider this stuff "obvious" and well known, but for those unfamiliar with the terms this wiki should spell it out.

I don't think I'm enough of a guru to explain all this to the world, but maybe somebody else here is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttennebkram (talkcontribs) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Release Naming Convention[edit]

It might be good to go into the different naming conventions of the releases. For instance there is 5.1 vs 5.2 and then there are "QU1" and "QU2" (Quarterly update). I've not found any RH documentation as to what the "QU" actually means other than a reference to it being "Quartly update". --Paul (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

,.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.160.11 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to free or community distributions[edit]

Is this section really appropriate in this article? This idea that the RHEL releases are somehow generated from a certain release of RHL or Fedora is not acurate. RHEL is based on whichever versions of applications have been proven to be stable together. Fedora DOES serve as a testbed for Redhat, but it is an application by application basis, not a "Fedora 4 will become RHEL 4" test. Also, each of these lists is different depending on who you ask. There is no official citable document from Redhat outlining the relationship, so I think this section should be dropped. Meton magis (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RHEL 6 release schedule[edit]

There have been some edits on when the Red Hat 6 release is going to happen. Are there any reliable sources for this? The edit I just deleted said it was based on Fedora 14, the 2.6.38 kernel and being released 3rd quarter of 2011, which I suspect is completely made up. -- JSBillings 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the RHEL 6 release stuff out. According to Tim Burke, VP of engineering for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, RHEL 6 is under development, but no dates or kernel versions or any of that have been set. See http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/summit/tburke_1050_rhel_roadmap.pdf for the roadmap he presented at Red Hat Summit 2009. Thomascameron (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Davidbspalding and Thomascameron for finding a reference and cleaning up the page! -- JSBillings 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A forum post at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/red-hat-31/when-we-shall-expect-rhel-6-a-711537/page2.html indicates that the release date may be in Sept. However this source is so far from authoritative that it's barley worth mentioning. That said, roomer is all that I've seen. --Paul (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess they blew it with that wild guess, eh Fnj2 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RHN[edit]

Perhaps RHN should be mentioned. It's highly relevant to RHEL since it's a very common way of mass-managing RHEL boxes. --Paul (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph too long[edit]

My idea is that the lead paragraph is too long. Any reader agree on that? --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph or the section. The first paragraph is only 3 sentences long. The lead itself has too many paragraph, but that's simply b/c it wasn't paragraphed well, with some single sentence paragraphs. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Obfuscation" of patches[edit]

I am confused about this statement. How does not providing patches count as obfuscation? Couldn't anyone who wishes just run a diff tool to get patch files anyway? How is this different? Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a diff would work if you wanted to just know all the changes. The difference from previous behavior was that Red Hat provided hundreds of patches, each with a particular feature being backported/integrated, so other vendors (read Oracle) could pick and choose which feature to port into their own maintained kernel package. Red Hat continues to maintain these patches, but they're no longer public. -- JSBillings 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AS/ES abbreviations[edit]

It is often assumed the branding ES and AS stand for "Entry-level Server" and "Advanced Server", respectively. [...] However, nowhere on its site or in its literature does Red Hat say what AS, ES and WS stand for.

Who wrote this? It took me 10 seconds flat to find...

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (formerly Red Hat Linux Advanced Server)." http://www.redhat.com/whitepapers/rhel/AdvServerRASMpdfRev2.pdf

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES (“entry/mid server”)" http://www.redhat.com/whitepapers/rhel/RHEL3FamOverWPSO.pdf 70.168.250.62 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Maybe when the Author wrote that, it didn't say that on the site, but it does again now. Raindr (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)