Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?

IMO RedHat has a better product than Microsoft, on the server-side that is. Actually the modified RedHat kernel is even more stable than the current latest stable standard kernel. People have been negative to using Linux for heavy system-critical workloads (such as the database), becuase of th lack of stability. Database vendor Oracle has teamed up with Red Hat to create the Unbreakable (yeah, I know that's bullshit) Oracle 9i, probably the best database out there. And it runs on Red Hat, so......

On the other hand they're the biggest Linux vendor so people put them down because of that. It's every coroporations goal to become the monopolists. When it gets down to business, it's all about how much money you can make. Sad but true.

It is true that RedHat does have some current commercial advantages over the other distros.
It also easier to install than windows IMO and with reiser and ext3 it is very simple to recover a failed install.ReiserFS and ext3 are much better than ntfss However as has already been pointed out the GPL will provide a check and balance that not possible with M$

Quote:

---

Your are way off base. Linux even as a desktop (ie.. Mandrake, RedHat etc..) is still way far more stable than Windows of any flavor.

---

at what point did i a) even address stability, and b) say that microsoft was in any way a superior product?

the point i was making is that someone who utilizes the features of a desktop environment solely without understanding or taking the time to learn the underworkings is no better off than in any other desktop environment. considering the initial intention(s) of linux and redhat in particular this point is actually very valid. those who use linux out of price convenience or the ability to egotistically rely on the "m$ sux, i use linux" but have no comprehension above the lateral and longitudinal movements of the mouse and a well timed click or two defame any chance "linux" has of ever receiving the recognition it probably deserves in the unix world.

redhat in an attempt to provide a stable os with corporate level support packages still does not have even close to the corporate market of even the declining sunos, aix, and hpux systems. why? because they are still though of as an alternative os to windows. not a viable, stable, and reliable server os. and whether you agree with that or not is really based on individual experience and preference. the numbers you read don't mean jack. (ie. ever looked at the host specs on an oracle comparison ad?). do your own benchmarking; it's worth the time and effort in the long run.

but please don't misinterpret or super-impose your own feelings of insecurity on what you value in an os, product, technology on any of my statements or opinions. read it for what it's worth, if you still find it offensive/off basis - then so be it. i like to tip the boat and get real responses rather than than the typically 5 post clones that plague this board. if it's worth the drop in ap's who cares so long as people use their own brains instead of whatever the latest chronicle indicates.

As long as you can download an iso from RedHat and they still keep you up to date with fixes and they aren't getting a dime from you -- they are not Microsoft.

When they ask you to bend over and spread your cheeks; then they become Microsoft.

well as lng as redhat doesn´t charge more than they do, they have no resemblance what so ever to Microsoft!

No....redhat is not microsoft and never will be......linux is free, not a double crossing, backstabbing product like windows.

I like Jeremy Hogans response to the "Microsoft of Linux" on NewsForge http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/08...8.shtml?tid=23