Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Ideas Are Needed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by elanthis View Post
    More accurate to say that desktop _Linux_ is dead. It has failed in every conceivable benchmark for mass market desktop usage for 15 years straight, and does not seem to be moving anywhere quickly in that regard.

    Linux has however seen massive success on the mobile front, so wise men will focus their Linux investments there. If you want a great traditional desktop, there is absolutely nothing technically compelling about the cutting edge of Linux compared to the already stale Windows 7 experience (and Windows 8 is around the corner). Unless being free/Free is important for your use case, Linux _is_ dead on the desktop, and always has been despite a decade of people claiming that Linux is "almost there" (often by comparing it to a 15 year old OS like Win95).
    Linux is alive on desktop and its popularity is growing. When there will be games available on Linux it will become much more popular than it's now. When comes to technical things we need Wayland. With Wayland, KDE and games there will be no single thing in Windows that will stop me from formating the C: drive.

    Leave a comment:


  • drag
    replied
    People under estimated the level of inertia for user-level software. Linux doesn't have to be 'just a better OS' then Windows to gain acceptance. It has to be a MASSIVELY better OS.

    Which, for desktop purposes, it is certainly not hugely better. It is decidedly worse if you have applications that you want/need that don't run on Linux. The primary purpose of a OS is to run applications. If your applications don't run on a particular OS, then that OS is not going to be a option to you.

    Too bad, so sad.

    It is terrific for my purposes though. Far better then Windows or even OS X. But I am not a typical user.
    ================================


    What I would like to see is continious improvements in FreeIPA.

    FreeIPA currently is the easiest and best designed system for setting up Linux as a domain controller. Kerberos, LDAP, Certificate management, and various utilities that integrate well together means that it is the closest thing you can get to Active Directory in the Open Source world.

    What I would like to see is things like:

    * Properly support AXFR transfers for their LDAP Bind plugin.

    * Better integration of Samba 4 so that FreeIPA can be used in conjunction with Windows-land. Active Directory can be used with Linux systems, but FreeIPA cannot be used with Windows systems.

    * dconf plugin for LDAP so that Linux desktops/workstations can have equivalents of 'Group Policies'

    And probably a few other things like that. Better UI and stuff like that for managing certs. Better DNS support. Stuff like that. Just make it better.

    And lower the prices of all that stuff so that at least it's priced close to AD.

    Leave a comment:


  • elanthis
    replied
    Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
    If they really believe that the desktop is almost dead, they've got their collective heads up their asses. That's nonsense.
    More accurate to say that desktop _Linux_ is dead. It has failed in every conceivable benchmark for mass market desktop usage for 15 years straight, and does not seem to be moving anywhere quickly in that regard.

    Linux has however seen massive success on the mobile front, so wise men will focus their Linux investments there. If you want a great traditional desktop, there is absolutely nothing technically compelling about the cutting edge of Linux compared to the already stale Windows 7 experience (and Windows 8 is around the corner). Unless being free/Free is important for your use case, Linux _is_ dead on the desktop, and always has been despite a decade of people claiming that Linux is "almost there" (often by comparing it to a 15 year old OS like Win95).

    Leave a comment:


  • alelinuxbsd
    replied
    Also i hope that at that time the file system Btrfs could offer better performance especially on applications as Postgresql where the difference respect the use of ext4 is very huge ...
    A certain difference, 10-15 %, don't really matter because that file system have other big type of advantage, but i like the idea of use an equivalent enterprise linux distro for development and i use mainly postgresql, so if this file system slow me down too much, could be a strong issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by DavidNielsen View Post
    I'd love it if they would stop their FUD and shipped Mono with RHEL7. Preferably packaged in a manner more consistent with Upstream (and what debian/Ubuntu does) rather than the backwards Fedora packaging.
    Ubuntu gets rid of mono in 12.04. Mono is dying, so stop whining about trash.

    Leave a comment:


  • alelinuxbsd
    replied
    I hope for the use of Btrfs as file system standard.
    Naturally maintain the possibilities to choose differently and going the same with ext4.
    Seem that from Fedora 17 this should be happen so i presume that at that time they finally put a fsck tool for fix automatically eventual problem. I think this is the major real issue that remain.
    So I think perhaps there is enough time for a similar decision even on the future RedHat 7.

    Note:
    My love for enterprise file system was born when i installed OpenSolaris, the file system Zfs is the only thing that i miss ...
    Btrfs have feautures comparable, on a certain way, but for the moment isn't ready, but this situation seem should change ...

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by tehehe View Post
    One thing:
    Provide support for system level virtualization (like openvz with full tcp stack virtualization). Solaris Zones are absolutely amazing and indispensable for me.
    Are you sure they don't support LXC already?

    Leave a comment:


  • tehehe
    replied
    One thing:
    Provide support for system level virtualization (like openvz with full tcp stack virtualization). Solaris Zones are absolutely amazing and indispensable for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • frantaylor
    replied
    Support Issues

    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    They then need to compile software from tarballs; doing that is a pain.
    It also means that your third-party vendors are not going to offer you support. Many commercial offerings are complex beasties and they rely heavily on many of the libraries and other subsystems provided by RedHat. If you start adding new packages or changing existing ones, there is a very real possibility that you are going to introduce problems in your other installed software.

    When you have to call vendor support to report an issue, the first thing they are going to ask you, is: "are you running on a plain-jane vanilla install?" If you can't answer "yes" then be prepared for a response like "well why don't you try to reproduce the bug on a clean system, and then call us back".

    If you want to do science experiments with unsupported software, don't do it on a RHEL system. It's pointless. You're just making it difficult for the vendors to support you. The only reason to use RHEL is for the support. Use CentOS or SL or PUIAS or whatever, if you don't need support.

    Leave a comment:


  • mattst88
    replied
    Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
    Wow. That would certainly appear to be true according to his LinkedIn profile. At first I thought you were joking! A freedom-loving old Linux hand wouldn't jump ship and sell out to the guys who are running our country into the ground, would they?

    Would they?

    ... The answer is apparently "Yes".
    I sort of figured that he might be helping to orchestrate the next financial meltdown. Time will tell.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X