RHEL Copyright Removal

John Burton j.c.burton at gats-inc.com
Fri Nov 21 12:36:26 EST 2003

I'm running Fedora on one of my machines and am pretty happy with it - 
its RedHat Linux with the names and logos changed. It uses a slightly 
newer kernel than RH9 (2.4.22 vs 2.4.20 IIRC). One minor difficulty I 
had came from trying to compile a third party (nvidia) kernel module. 
The kernel is compiled with gcc32, but the default compiler is gcc33. 
Both are supplied on the system, so you just have to be careful about 
specifying which compiler to use. I'm guessing there is some issue with 
gcc33 and the kernel...

So far so good... we'll probably go with fedora for development or 
personal workstations and RHEL for our production servers...


Robert G. Brown wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 neil.brown at syngenta.com wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>We're having a bit of a dilemma here, as I'm sure many others are, about
>>what to use as our standard Linux distro with the end of life of the Red Hat
>>family. RHEL or SLES are looking favourites in terms of supportability, but
>>of course there's the not insignificant problem of cost. The thought of
>>having to pay at least $179 per server, with around 50 compute nodes, along
>>with various other non-beowulf Linux servers doesn't appeal.
>>I've been trying to find out how much effort it takes to strip the RH
>>copyrighted bits out of RHEL and compile it for our own use and whether
>>doing so reduces it's functionality a great deal. I've trawled the web and
>>usenet, but not found much to write home about on the subject.
>This will soon be a FAQ.  The best solutions kicked around so far (if
>you wish to stick with basically free RPM-based full-service
>kickstartable/pxe installable distros) are two community supported
>Fedora:  http://fedora.redhat.com
>This is basically a core that is RH9 with all the logos etc stripped
>down to where they inherit GPL (eventually completely, I imagine).  It
>is a community supported model, where I believe they are looking for
>people to take on pieces of the bug triage tree -- Adopt a Package
>Today!  It is designed in layers, with a "core" that should be fully
>functional at the server and workstation level and supported as well as
>anything out there, a legacy layer, and a contributed/kitchen sink layer
>with less stable but bleeding-edge useful stuff.  The project is
>yummified from the beginning, which means that it is very simple to
>create/rsync your own repository mirror and then use yum to maintain a
>LAN or cluster from it.
>At a guess, NEARLY anything you have set up for RH 9 will eventually be
>quite portable to fedora, although on the yum list I hear of occasional
>exceptions, as one might expect until things settle down.
>The fedora core is "in production" now at version 1, I believe, although
>I expect that only hardy admins and developer types are adopting it at
>first until and to help it settle in.
>Note well that www.fedora.org is a site that will just ask you to go
>away, it is NOT associated with this project...:-(
>Note well that Red Hat IS associated with this project.  This may or may
>not make you feel good about going this route.  I personally think they
>are strongly committed to it as they rely on SOMETHING to create a
>rawhide -> semistable released -> rockstable corporate chain; they damn
>well can't unlease barely-out-of-rawhide on people paying big bucks per
>seat and disinclined to participate in the debugging process.
>Caosity:  http://www.caosity.org
>This is Community Linux WITHOUT corporate strings, run at least in part
>by clustervolken.  They too are stripping RH as a base, but plan to
>eventually diverge.  At a guess, at some point there will be Much
>Synthesis and sharing between the two projects as it would be silly not
>to.  They too are soliciting humans to help out.
>I know people heavily engaged in both projects, and expect both projects
>to be stable at the starting level of RH9 before RHL support ceases.
>One or the other will likely be the most successful at setting up and
>organizing the bug triage network and perhaps eventually dominate,
>although they are also likely to differentiate in focus (Caos has a very
>definite cluster/scientific computing flavor due to the work
>environments of a lot of the primary drivers).
>HTH.  I personally have stopped worrying about the transition, and plan
>to convert my personal machines to fedora "soon" to start screwing
>around with it prior to a campus conversion likely in the spring.
>"Soon" as in my first rsync of the oceanic fedora core to my home
>repository server is being slurped through a DSL straw as I type this,
>likely done sometime today.  I have a totally idle box all lined up to
>be first, PXE and kickstart all happy -- I'll cheerfully report my
>experiences as soon as I have any.
>   rgb
>>Have any of you had experiences with such an exercise? Were they positive?
>>How much effort was required? I believe ROCKS is based on RHEL 2.1 (not sure
>>whether it's ES or AS) so it surely can't be that bad as a cluster oriented
>>Thanks for any suggestions,
>>Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>>To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>Robert G. Brown	                       http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
>Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
>Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
>Phone: 1-919-660-2567  Fax: 919-660-2525     email:rgb at phy.duke.edu
>Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

More information about the Beowulf mailing list