Hi Bruce, What kind of problems are you having with SuSE? Perhaps I can help. Frank *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 4/28/98, at 3:29 PM, Bruce A. Rothwell wrote:

...

Pascal Bleser wrote:

...

its 6.0, and it'll have glibc2 (libc6)

Pascal l'irréductible Linuxien

Will SuSE Linux 6.0 have sound support ALA RedHat?

I've GIVEN UP on getting sound to work on my Linux 5.1 installation. When I found out 5.2 doesn't offer any extra sound support as RedHat now does, I called and had my name removed from the Constant Upgrade program...

... perhaps I'll try RedHat with that money... or perhaps just wait until SuSE gets a clue...

Bruce Rothwell / barothwe@cca.rockwell.com / Cedar Rapids, IA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My views don't necessarily represent the views of my employer.

By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C) it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is -greater-, for -each- violation. -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

-- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Just a quick question, 5.2 was released 2 weeks ago, and we are already talking about the next release??? Is it immanent? I think not. Isn't SuSE on a schedule of 4 releases a year? If we start talking about 6.0 to soon SuSE won't be able to sell any copies of their 5.2 release :)))) Lach -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Kaare Rasmussen wrote:

On 28 Apr, Lachlan Dunlop wrote:

...

Just a quick question, 5.2 was released 2 weeks ago, and we are already talking about the next release??? Is it immanent? I think not. Isn't SuSE on a schedule of 4 releases a year? If we start talking about 6.0 to soon SuSE won't be able to sell any copies of their 5.2 release :))))

C'mon. This isn't the S.u.S.E. Sales List. People here most propably already have S.u.S.E. Linux.

I think it's a fair question: How does S.u.S.E. plan the near future?

Still I had hoped that somebody would comment on Gnome...

Hi, at the moment no decision is made if the next release will be 5.3 or 6.0. We are working on 6.0 right now, this means we use glibc to recompile all the packages and check out possible problems. If everything or at least a major part of the applications work fine with glibc, the next release will be 6.0. We definitly will have glibc on the 6.0 release! If we run in (unexspected) trouble with glibc, we'll have an updated 5.2, which will be called S.u.S.E. Linux 5.3. I don't know much about GNOME, but it seems, that it needs glibc, so we won't have it until the 6.0 release, but anyway, now that Qt will be free available (-> c.o.l.a.:"The KDE Free Qt Foundation") maybe the GNOME project isn't that important anymore? Ciao, BB -- Bodo Bauer S.u.S.E., LLC fon +1-510-835 7873 bb@suse.de 458 Santa Clara Avenue fax +1-510-835 7875 <A HREF="http://www.suse.com"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com</A">http://www.suse.com Oakland CA, 94610 USA -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

...

I don't know much about GNOME, but it seems, that it needs glibc, so we won't have it until the 6.0 release, but anyway, now that Qt will be free available (-> c.o.l.a.:"The KDE Free Qt Foundation") maybe the GNOME project isn't that important anymore?

Bodo, please read that post you reference again. Qt is not free and will not be so until Troll Tech goes out of business or something.

All that is guaranteed is that if Troll goes under, Qt can survive by becoming free software. That doesn't solve the real problem that Qt is *not* free software and as such we (Red Hat) will not ship it or anything that relies on it.

[Warning, rant ahead] Hmm.. Perhaps I am out of line here, but I find this rather annoying. I believe this is the SuSE mailing list, so I would tend to assume that Bodo's comments referred to what is important to SuSE Linux in particular or perhaps the world in general, rather than what is important to Red Hat Linux. Additionally, Bodo states "Qt will be free avilable" which it IS! Qt is free for the purposes of the KDE projet and all other non-commercial efforts. It may not be "free software" by the GPL definition of such, but perhaps this merely serves to underline the problems with the term "Free Software". However it is freely available, and free from cost for the KDE project. I remain unconvinced that the Troll boogeymen will jump out and attack the Linux world as soon as they are entrenched in power. The source code is available. Diffs from the field are accepted, frequent views are made availble, you can modify the source. The functional differences between free software and Qt are, as I see it 1) Troll could take the source and make it proprietary. Answer: No, they can't, this is what the foundation is about. 2) If people want to add features to Qt that Troll doesn't, they're out of luck. Answer: This is true. However, I have heard exactly 0 examples of such things, even in a hypothetical context. Troll knows what they're doing and they have the best graphic toolkit around. 3) Commercial companies will have to pay Troll to develop Qt apps for KDE. Answer: This is true. Firstly though, it is a small barrier to companies who expect to make any decent amount of money off their products. Additionally, this is a tradeoff from commercial companies having to worry about GPL taints from GTK. You may discount such as silly, but it's a real concern for companies trying to sell traditional-model apps into this unix world. In short, it is Red Hat's policy to ship only "Free Software" with their distribution. Well perhaps I'm missing something, but I see on your website that Red Hat ships with Metro-X, BRU2000-PE, and RealPlayer/Encoder/Server. Perhaps you are referring to the freely downloadable version of Red hat? As far as I can see, Red Hat is taking the stand that Free Software is the Right Thing To Do. And while I have trouble integrating the reselling of various no-source products bundled with Red Hat into that philosophy, I will accept that their internal product is intended to stay pure. However, I have a different view. I do not see Free Software as intrinsically necessary. I see it as a powerful tool for enabling technologies, work, and progress. I myself have spent a relatively minute, but existant, amount of time attempting to submit assistance to a few "Free Software" projects such as the VIM editor. However, I'm for things that work. I bought OSS because it worked. I plan on purchasing XiGraphics AccelX because it works much faster than the Xfree servers. KDE and Qt work, and work well. There exists no danger of it becoming closed. I recommend Red Hat to many people side by side with SuSE. Some denigrate SuSE for shipping with commercial apps. Some find it useful for the same reasons. Do we not have enough space for more than one idiology in the Linux community? -josh -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

(Ted Harding) writes: | > Do we not have enough space for more than one idiology in the Linux | > community? | > -josh | Congratulations to Josh on a balanced and realistic view. I | especially echo his last sentence. Yes, you're right. But where Donnie is right, he's right, too: qt isn't free. But as Josh said, Bodo's choosing of words is okay as well. Personally, I'm very interested in the fact, that GNOME will work on S.u.S.E. Linux in the future -- and I don't see any reason why it should not happen as an alternative to KDE. Important components of GNOME are already available on S.u.S.E. Linux, mostly in stable versions (guile, gtk, gettext). With the forthcoming S.u.S.E. Linux 6.0 -- don't ask me for the release date yet -- we'll provide major updates of all these packages and GNOME will compile out of the box, more or less. GNU autoconf will be your friend. -- Karl Eichwalder S.u.S.E. GmbH Fax +49-911-3206727 ke@suse.de Gebhardtstrasse 2 Mo & Th 13:00-18:00: <A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~ke/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.de/~ke/</A">http://www.suse.de/~ke/ 90762 Fuerth, Germany Hotline +49-911-3247130 -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

...

...

I don't know much about GNOME, but it seems, that it needs glibc, so we won't have it until the 6.0 release, but anyway, now that Qt will be free available (-> c.o.l.a.:"The KDE Free Qt Foundation") maybe the GNOME project isn't that important anymore?

Bodo, please read that post you reference again. Qt is not free and will not be so until Troll Tech goes out of business or something.

All that is guaranteed is that if Troll goes under, Qt can survive by becoming free software. That doesn't solve the real problem that Qt is *not* free software and as such we (Red Hat) will not ship it or anything that relies on it.

[Warning, rant ahead]

Hmm.. Perhaps I am out of line here, but I find this rather annoying. I believe this is the SuSE mailing list, so I would tend to assume that Bodo's comments referred to what is important to SuSE Linux in particular or perhaps the world in general, rather than what is important to Red Hat Linux.

Yes, this is correct. I am not trying to impose any will here, just point out Red Hat's beliefs and philosophies and the reasons behind them. Everyone is still free to do what they want and I will not *judge* based on that (well, at *least* not in this forum, anyway :-). My point was merely to correct or at least clarify the statement that "Qt will be free available". That implies that it is not now, but that it will be. In reality, it will not be any more free than it is now *unless* Troll decides to go out of business or sell it or something drastic. Bodo probably already knew and understood this and slightly mis-spoke. I don't know. Either way, I just don't like to sit idly by and allow misinformation to be spread, intended or not.

Additionally, Bodo states "Qt will be free avilable" which it IS! Qt is

Then how "will" it be if it already "is"?

free for the purposes of the KDE projet and all other non-commercial efforts. It may not be "free software" by the GPL definition of such, but perhaps this merely serves to underline the problems with the term "Free Software". However it is freely available, and free from cost for the KDE project.

Yes, but it is *not* "free software". It is also not "freely redistributable", which is part of the basic problem. Bug fixed versions are not distributable at all until Troll pulls your fix in, either.

I remain unconvinced that the Troll boogeymen will jump out and attack the Linux world as soon as they are entrenched in power. The source

In fact, I'm fully convinced that they would *not* do that. I'm not scared of this at all. I like the folks at Troll Tech and admire the fine work they do quite a bit. This is not a fight.

code is available. Diffs from the field are accepted, frequent views are made availble, you can modify the source. The functional

You can not redistribute it, though.

differences between free software and Qt are, as I see it

1) Troll could take the source and make it proprietary.

Answer: No, they can't, this is what the foundation is about.

Yes, and this is good.

2) If people want to add features to Qt that Troll doesn't, they're out of luck.

Answer: This is true. However, I have heard exactly 0 examples of such things, even in a hypothetical context. Troll knows what they're doing and they have the best graphic toolkit around.

Well, the perfect example is that you are developing an app and you find a bug. You *must* wait on the official fix from Troll even if you can fix it yourself. While this might be "acceptable" to many, this situation does not occur with truly "free software".

3) Commercial companies will have to pay Troll to develop Qt apps for KDE.

Answer: This is true. Firstly though, it is a small barrier to companies who expect to make any decent amount of money off their products. Additionally, this is a tradeoff from commercial companies having to worry about GPL taints from GTK. You may discount such as silly, but it's a real concern for companies trying to sell traditional-model apps into this unix world.

Small barrier or not, it is a barrier that does not exist with truly "free software". In short, I just don't care to see Qt labelled as "free". In the "free software" sense, it is not. That's my only real gripe with any of this...if SUSe wants to ship Qt, that's fine with me. I'd much rather they stuck with Gnome and GTk+, but they have no obligation to listen to me.

In short, it is Red Hat's policy to ship only "Free Software" with their distribution. Well perhaps I'm missing something, but I see on your website that Red Hat ships with Metro-X, BRU2000-PE, and RealPlayer/Encoder/Server. Perhaps you are referring to the freely downloadable version of Red hat?

The "official" boxed set does. There are a couple minor differences, though. One, there is an official "Red Hat" distribution available for free that does not include those components. We distribute it ourselves via FTP (at $12k per month for our net connection!) for free and we also distribute it on our PowerTools CD set. Other folks sell it for as little as $2. The other difference is that none of those commercial parts are development environments. We will not include a commercial development environment simply due to the fact that we had more than a handful of paying customers who complained that they would switch to another distribution since they could no longer feel safe in their ability to buy RH and install it on a commercial developer's workstation without having to worry about that developer using a library that weren't freely usable.

As far as I can see, Red Hat is taking the stand that Free Software is the Right Thing To Do. And while I have trouble integrating the reselling of various no-source products bundled with Red Hat into that philosophy, I will accept that their internal product is intended to stay pure.

Those are simply add-ons much like the 30 day installation support that our product also comes with. Like I said, if you don't want them we do offer a *complete* alternative that does not include them.

However, I have a different view. I do not see Free Software as intrinsically necessary. I see it as a powerful tool for enabling technologies, work, and progress. I myself have spent a relatively minute, but existant, amount of time attempting to submit assistance to a few "Free Software" projects such as the VIM editor. However, I'm for

Woo-hoo! Vim ROCKS! :-)

things that work. I bought OSS because it worked. I plan on purchasing XiGraphics AccelX because it works much faster than the Xfree servers. KDE and Qt work, and work well. There exists no danger of it becoming closed.

I recommend Red Hat to many people side by side with SuSE. Some denigrate SuSE for shipping with commercial apps. Some find it useful for the same reasons.

Do we not have enough space for more than one idiology in the Linux community?

Yes we do. I hope we always do, in fact. I just pointed out what I thought to be a small error in Bodo's wording and followed up with some commentary on why Red Hat won't ship it. Given that we won't, it's obvious that we'd rather other Linux distributions didn't either. But we're certainly not going to run around condemning them (especially on their own lists!) for it. Please note that the only reason I hang out here is to see what's going on with others in the free software community. Occasionally I'll chime in, and since I work for Red Hat it will generally be the Red Hat view of things. That doesn't mean anyone has to listen or follow Red Hat. It's just our view. I hope it's welcome even if ignored. :-) --Donnie -- Donnie Barnes <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com/~djb"><A HREF="http://www.redhat.com/~djb</A">http://www.redhat.com/~djb djb@redhat.com "Bah." Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. My Dad used to say I have deceptive quickness. I'm slower than I look. -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e