Talk:Red Hat Enterprise Linux

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release schedule 

message: 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.
:Maybe you are correct.  I'm not sure if "caring" about enterprises was their motive or if they had a different intention when they shifted from RHL to RHEL.  However, I disagree that RHL 6.2E should be omitted from the history, because it shows a key moment when the decision was made to re-brand their product from RHL to RHEL. --proxxz talk 13:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RHL 6.2E 

message: (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)
thread_title:  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not? 

message: It should be noted that CentOS () 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 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Desktop 4 vs. Desktop 5 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 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)
replies: text:  Done  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.162.97 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of "RHEL" 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you can find a reference to it, then it can be included. ~~ [Jam][talk] 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says as much on the current events section of Wikipedia's main page today.  Brentt (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Fastest supercomputer

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terms 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release/Update/Version Abbreviations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release Naming Convention 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relationship to free or community distributions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks to Davidbspalding and Thomascameron for finding a reference and cleaning up the page! -- JSBillings 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RHEL 6 release schedule 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RHN 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Obfuscation" of patches 

message: :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)
thread_title:  AS/ES abbreviations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091008223755/http://www.redhat.com/rhel/moving/ to https://www.redhat.com/rhel/moving/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224120105/http://www.redhat.com:80/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/extended-lifecycle-support/ to https://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/extended-lifecycle-support/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream.  If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple version numbers in the infobox? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2000/press_enterprise.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427065858/http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc-available to https://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc-available
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I typically use this article to refer to release dates, which tbh I could find elsewhere; but I'm finding it extremely difficult to scout up the earliest beta release dates for each point release, for the purpose of whining to third party developers that they've "had this long since X.Y beta" to fix their software or similar. I think it would be valuable for other purposes, too (not least a record of how long each point release sits in beta). Perhaps it could be "dripped" in under this topic in talk, and then have a quick review to see if it belongs in the main article. Thoughts?
--Rfsmit (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at their releases page, and it says nothing about beta releases. I also found a small news page about beta releases, but there's not much information there.--proxxz talk 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta release dates in list? 

message: A RedHat Press Release lists how both Fedora and CentOS relate to RedHat Enterprise Linux.
The relevant text:
We’re making CentOS Stream the collaboration hub for RHEL, with the landscape looking like this:
'''
* Fedora Linux is the place for major new operating system innovations, thoughts, and ideas - essentially, this is where the next major version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is born.
* CentOS Stream is the continuously delivered platform that becomes the next minor version of RHEL.
So when you are running a RedHat Enterprise Linux and you want to know where the development comes from:
RHEL 8.2 comes from Fedora, while 8.2 comes from CentOS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyraz (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with CentOS 

message: A recent anonymous edit to the article changed the article to say that CentOS Stream is now the upstream for RHEL, not Fedora.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux&diff=next&oldid=1035664570
In truth, they are both upstream for RHEL.  Fedora is the upstream for new major versions, and CentOS Stream is the upstream for new minor versions.  I have a disclosed COI for this article, so I wanted to start a discussion here about editing the article to reflect those relationships.
Carlwgeorge (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both Fedora and CentOS are upstreams for RHEL