Jump to content

Talk:Red Hat/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Red Hat Product, Fedora Project

Red Hat makes a clear distinction between the Product, Red Hat, and the Project, Fedora Core. This wiki page doesn't seem to reflect that. For more information, see: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/

The answer probably would be that Fedora contains multiple Red Hat logos, and the Red Hat logos are not just for fun. From the past history, many people think that this company is likely to say that only they have right to distribute Fedora in any way unless all logos are removed.
Now there are many average-level Linux users, not just experts that are able to build any version from included sources without problems. For people who never tried to remove logos or recompile Linux this may look the thing that is near impossible to do. Probably Fedora would benefit from somehow more convincible Red Hat explanation that the logos are easy enough to remove?
Among other things, the logos simply are doing they job, the job they are created for: associating the project with the logo owner. 81.63.49.12 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Q: Why a project instead of a product? A: A global steering committee at Red Hat decided that Red Hat Linux was suffering from too many compromises as a retail "product", and that we should redirect our efforts at creating a community-based project. Rather than being run through product management as something that has to appear on retail shelves on a certain date, Fedora Core will be released based on schedules, set by a steering committee, that will be open and accessible to the community, as well as influenced by the community."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.22.15.77 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I recall they were upset about the abusive amounts of "Red Hat Linux" boxed sets that every tom dick and harry were retailing in stores and handing out with "magazine" subscriptions. This was IMHO the real reason behind : splitting into fedora getting harsher about the trademarks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

merge

I really think that the Fedora Project article should be a section in here, so I've marked the merge. 65.94.100.225 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Fedora Project" existed independently from Red Hat back in the day. I think we rather need that separate article, even if it no longer mentions anything about the original namesake (that should be fixed). ¦ Reisio 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Fedora Project is independent, though it still draws heavily from Red Hat. æ² ✆ 2006-08-26t13:50z
Fedora is big and distinct enough from RedHat that it deserves its own article. If anything, the Fedora article should be expanded. 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
oppose for all those reasons mentionend above

More on the business model

I'd like to know how they're making their money. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.78.86 (talk • contribs) 8:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

me too! Or they make money in a non profit way i.e their goal is just to reach the sustainable level to exist? Thanks Alexziller 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Their business model. Pamri • Talk 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a "misconception" that they sell free software. They do sell it, or at least support for it. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Hat or Red Hat Inc.?

I don't know why this page is about the company although there are many other things called Red Hat.

I think this need to be the disambiguation page, since there are two more other "things" called Red Hat (with both initial letter as capital letters) Red Hat Society and Red Hat Sect, both have the same importance to be called "Red Hat", since they all have a second part of the name, in the Red Hat Inc. case, the Inc.

I'm a Linux aficionado, but I think many times Wikipedia is too focused on computer things, and so lost the focus on other things which are also important, and this can be considered as a violation of the NPOV.

--Camahuetos 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone out there know where to find the original 'Running Man' logo used by Red Hat in the early days?

Lucasrangit 05:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC) The preceding contrib actually is the result of three edits, one accurately signed, and two others in the preceding 3-4 minutes by 75.84.226.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

By any chance do you mean this? --I80and 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism in history section

The "History" section (permalink) appears to contain several sentences which are an almost verbatim copy of Red Hat's Corporate History Page, which is indicated as Copyrighted by Red Hat Inc. Even if this isn't a technical copyvio, it would seem to be plagiarism. Figured I should point this out. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1995

AAC Corporation was founded in 1993. It is the ancestor of Red Hat, but NOT Red Hat. Red Hat was founded in 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.144.102 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Matrix

“Matrix is [...] the primary distributor of [...] Red hat.”

Matrix is a company that has been criticised for exploiting ultra-orthodox Israeli women they employ in the settlement Modiin Ilit in the occupied West Bank, built on lands appropriated from the Palestinian village Bil'in, see Gadi Algazi: Offshore Zionism, in New Left Review 40, July/August 2006, p. 27–37. Is that worth mentioning? —Babelfisch (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy?

This whole article feels like a plug for Red Hat to me.

Soaringgoldeneagle - sorry, can't be bothered to login —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.18.52 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you, even though I'm Red Hat fan. However, I don't think it's intentional. I think it's just the fact that Red Hat isn't compared to other proprietary products. I added a link to Microsoft in the competitors (After all, Microsoft [i]is[/i] Red Hat's biggest competitor. But I think some more should be done, to make the article read more like a balanced report. Erikina (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


108

It seems this program has been silently pulled from Red Hat. Perhaps sub-category should removed? It doesn't appear to be a very notable part of what Red Hat does or has done. Erikina (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Tag Posted

I have nothing against Red Hat, but this article reads like a press release. --Mister Tog 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I haven't looked at this page in a while and I have forgotten what my original problem with it was. Next time I will be more specific. Mister Tog 04:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of the prose you dislike, please? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there some fact that's disputed, or is the language all that sounds non-neutral? Asanselm 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you don't think the tone of the article is appropriate, then put up a "wikify" template, as the NPOV tag is used when cases of bias and slander occur, which this article clearly does not have. To be frank though, I think the article is just fine, and has no need for any re-write whatsoever, and I don't think it has the tone a press release. Avador 02:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So... since there isn't that much of a dispute, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. But if anyone has any suggestions or suchlike, bring on the discussion. Thanks, Asanselm 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first line as it reads now sounds more like a corporate mission statement than an encyclopaedic article "In computing, the company Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) dedicates itself to free and open source software". Of course, I'm sure Red Hat themselves would not have posted that ;) 60.240.207.146 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Red Hat name

The body of the following contrib consisted of copyright-protected material from Computerworld, and probably was not fair use even at the time it was copied here. It is now removed; any purpose it would have had is served adequately by noting that it consisted of the 2nd thru 6th 'graphs of the article "Ever wonder how Red Hat got its name?", dateline December 19, 2006, at the following URL, which Frandsen placed on the page.
--Jerzy•t 05:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=open_source&articleId=9006258&taxonomyId=88&intsrc=kc_top

[Copyright-protected material removed here]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frandsen (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Cygnus and the stockmarket story?

I've watched Revolution OS a bunch of times, where the story of Cygnus and its abnormally large stockvalue growth (and less covered in the movie, the large decrease later on) is covered. I am not famillar with the exact story and would like to know more. --Pacroon 11:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RH IPO

There was press coverage at the time, of the fact that the Red Hat owners designated a number of contributors to Linux for the opportunity to buy into the initial public offering of Red Hat stock (and presumably come away rich), but the underwriters conducting the IPO ruled out most or all of these on the grounds that they lacked the technical knowledge that would have enabled them to evaluate the value of the stock. (Someone among the rejected buyers was quoted as saying something to the effect that this was nonsense, because what "we" do all the time is read up on something they're unfamiliar with and learn enuf to hit the ground running.)
The IPO article alludes to "complex legal requirements" (perhaps including the underwriters certifying IPO purchasers' qualifications to understand the fine print) and "risky investment" decisions, but neither the accompanying article nor the IPO one seem to come closer than that to covering their respective portions of that incident. My guess is that more of our editors could succeed in using Red Hat than IPO as the entry point into material needed for fixing both articles in that respect.
--Jerzy•t 06:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Competitors

Can someone make a compelling case for why debian, xandros and the like should be considered Competitors? Thinking about it, Red Hats competitors include Microsoft, Apple, and so forth, on the server as well as the desktop. At least that what you'd think. Is a competitor still one when you 'like' to have them in your market, so to speak? Floker (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Citations Thought to be Needed

For this:

Red Hat sponsors the Fedora Project, a community-supported open-source project which aims to promote the rapid progress of free and open-source software and content. Fedora aims for rapid innovation using open processes and public forums.[18][citation needed]

I think that since we link to the Fedora main article, which already talks about how the project develops software in an innovative and communal way, the requirement that a citation is needed here should be disregarded. Since the paragraph in question summarizes what is elsewhere, it should be in that location not here that we require the proper citation. I could understand the need to cite it if we didn't already link to the main article. I'm removing the tag for now, but welcome discussion further on this -- Any thoughts? CaptainMorgan (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, the request was added in a previous version of the sentence. The version you saw had already been fixed to a neutral tone. --Chealer (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MRG section is wrong

MRG stands for three things: 

* the messaging system, compatible with AMPQ: http://www.redhat.com/mrg/messaging/
* the realtime kernel, as article says: http://www.redhat.com/mrg/realtime/
* the grid system, based on Condor: http://www.redhat.com/mrg/grid/

fyi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olea (talk • contribs) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat Exchange No Longer Exists

see the article about Red Hat Exchange on linuxplanet.com

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/6975/1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.250.104 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I will update the article. Please note, though, that placing a disputed tag on that section was inappropriate since the fact that they created RHX was not disputable. All you needed to do was add a sentence that said that they stopped the program and provide the link. At the very least, just post here on the talk page like you have. You don't need to place a disputed tag or some other tag to just update an article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Red Hat Consulting

Red Hat Consulting (formerly Global Professional Services) was formed in 2001, with the acquisition of VA Consulting ( [[1]]), this was then the basis for the team, some of which had members PTI moved in. In March 2012, Amentra no longer was a subsidiary and was merged into Red Hat Consulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.59.32 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Revenue compared to the revenue of a traditional Unix vendor

I remember a quote that RedHat had an estimated revenue "compared to that of a traditional Unix vendor" of only (if I remember correctly) about 10%. That seems sufficiently interesting, but I couldn't find it right now. Can somebody find a reference to such a statement from RedHat? The information may be outdated. --Bernhard Fastenrath 10:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that a comparison to a traditional Unix workstation vendor? It may be an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Unician ∇  01:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Red Hat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

US dollars

As this is a U.S based company the article should state monies in U.S dollars not Canadian dollars, even if the money is going to a Canadian charity. In fact that whole sentence is not really relevant to the article so should be removed or edited. This article should be about the company not what one investor spent their earnings on. It would probably be best to state the money, if relevant, in U.S dollars and a (CAD) equivalent in parentheses, if the section is to be kept. I only adjusted the dollar amount using a dollar calculator based on today's exchange rate, if someone wanted to update the rest, or remove the entire line as it is not really relevant in the first place as it's nobody's business what a private investor spends their earnings on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.185.68 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality rating

It's not clear why this article quality is rated "start" for the WikiProject Linux category, rather than "C" class as in WikiProject Computing. A class=C rating under WikiProject Linux would seem appropriate. Oogbus (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Hat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please update section on Fedora

The Fedora Project Board was replaced in 2014 by the Fedora Council. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council Please update the Fedora section correspondingly. (I would, but as a member of the Council I'm avoiding doing so.) Matthew Miller (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Red Hat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red Hat. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

jboss

Needs info on acquisition of JBoss. http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2006/jboss.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.234.140 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The entry for Wildfly (the current name for what JBoss became) links to this page, and the only reference on this page is another redirect back. Surely such a complex piece of software deserves a page of it's own, or at least a section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.225.215 (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Red Hat slogan

What is it? It has the words "Tested" and "Trusted" in it but I'm not sure what it exactly is. I heard it in 2016 while I was listening to NPR at the end of a funding plug for Red Hat. 172.56.41.71 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Infinispan into Red Hat

The article for Infinispan has been tagged for notability concerns since 2015. The current state of the article does not show its independent notability from its developer. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Opppose One is company, one is a piece of software. They are different. scope_creepTalk 08:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: see last comment, with all due respect I indicate all of you that Red Hat has a category for that and I added Infinispan to. Have a nice day!--Jimmy Olano (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"রেড হ্যাট" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect রেড হ্যাট. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#রেড হ্যাট until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Hat/Archive_1&oldid=1055284818"