Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

opencoreventures.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#61

Post by sublinear »

JadedEngineer wrote: post #53
candiddevmike wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have CIS, FIPS, and a whole host of other compliance without Red Hat, arguably just as easily. The reality is containers and container-first OSs are killing RHEL, you no longer need a breadth of OS packages or a fully capable OS. Just docker or podman. The only place RHEL has a stranglehold is with COTS apps, but those are all moving to containers too. I can't think of any widely used container that uses RHEL…

So containers run on air I take it? No, RHEL isn't being killed, but you're not going to see it as base image for your typical GitHub project. In the enterprise though, where security is tight, no one is going to build containers based on Alpine which is maintained by what, 10 people? Their customers are banks, governments, etc. which will happily pay for what they provide.

> In the enterprise though, where security is tight, no one is going to build containers based on Alpine

:shockedpikachuface:

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#62

Post by INTPenis »

rdtsc wrote: post #12

> If Red Hat tried to force people to pay too much, everyone would switch to the freely distributed versions (AlmaLinux, Rocky Linux, etc.). Not if they need a long term supported and certified OS with various compliance checkmarks associated with it.

Also that statement is kinda silly "everyone would switch", very broad and sweeping.

That's way easier said than done to convince our clients that "oh yeah, we're using not-RHEL now". We'd have to guarantee some self support to them in that case, in order to alleviate their fears.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#63

Post by 1letterunixname »

commandersaki wrote: post #38
huslage wrote: post #36

I was at Red Hat very early on. Red Hat has been remarkably consistent throughout its journey once it graduated from selling boxes of software at book stores (which was a necessary step). Red Hat only astook venture money once it was ready to go public and never before. The philosophy of Red Hat was to "make the pie bigger" and still largely is, therefore it supports open source first before anything else. This works…

I find Redhat jumped the shark when it started selling its distribution with different licensing options that let you use different number of CPU cores.

Almost no corporations pay for RHEL in any meaningful quantity. It's corp IT who pays for support and subscriptions, not production webops.

Cell phone manufacturers and social media companies run collectively around 100M CentOS servers that I know if directly.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#64

Post by 1letterunixname »

throwaway892238 wrote: post #20

Reasons why people pay for Red Hat: 1. Customer support 2. Certifications 3. Vendor support I don't know another distribution of Linux that provides all these things to the extent Red Hat does. You don't use Red Hat because you want to, you use it because it's the only choice. Any business could do exactly the same thing, and do it better than Red Hat. But there's really not much reason for a customer to move away fr…

If you're the DoD and you need to run above TS-SCI stuff and somehow Windows isn't a good fit and you don't have any spare fresh-faced kids stealing your docs to impress their virtual friends or leak to newspapers, then you run RHEL on Dell servers flown over UT and Dallas stadiums with all of the S&S fees.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#65

Post by ungamedplayer »

1letterunixname wrote: post #63
commandersaki wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Redhat jumped the shark when it started selling its distribution with different licensing options that let you use different number of CPU cores.

Almost no corporations pay for RHEL in any meaningful quantity. It's corp IT who pays for support and subscriptions, not production webops. Cell phone manufacturers and social media companies run collectively around 100M CentOS servers that I know if directly.

This is so anecdotal it hurts.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#66

Post by wkat4242 »

dralley wrote: post #28
jt2190 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, but that changed as of RHEL 8. I suspect that AmazonLinux (also originally downstream of RHEL) caused Red Hat to reconsider this. I’m not sure why exactly. Perhaps Red Hat/IBM compete with Amazon in some space, or perhaps they felt that Amazon should release their patches.

The CentOS Stream transition was a shift from the "throw it over the wall" model of open source like Android to a more collaborative approach. Example: As a user of (original) CentOS, you discover a bug. Where do you report that bug? The Red Hat Enterprise Linux bug tracker, because CentOS is just a clone and the community has no real ability to fix things. Then what? You wait until a Red Hat employee gets around to…

This is only a very small benefit to CentOS Stream. Most users would never report bugs but still suffered the loss of a LTS CentOS.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#68

Post by aftbit »

1letterunixname wrote: post #63
commandersaki wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Redhat jumped the shark when it started selling its distribution with different licensing options that let you use different number of CPU cores.

Almost no corporations pay for RHEL in any meaningful quantity. It's corp IT who pays for support and subscriptions, not production webops. Cell phone manufacturers and social media companies run collectively around 100M CentOS servers that I know if directly.

Perhaps this is why RedHat is declaring CentOS end-of-life:

https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/fastest-road-centos-linux-red...

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#69

Post by fourthark »

penciltwirler wrote: post #59

Hold on... aren't there a bunch of incredily successful "open source" / "source available" companies? Databricks, Cockroach Labs, Hashicorp, MongoDB, Elasticsearch etc?

Yes this article is promoting the "open core" model those companies follow, as opposed to the "pure" open source model Red Hat follows.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#70

Post by froh »

gabereiser wrote: post #32
tssva wrote: post #15

Red Hat early on invested in understanding the needs of the different industry verticals they were trying to sell into and made sure their products could meet things such as compliance and audit requirements of differing sectors. They developed guides on how to deploy their products in a manner which met those requirements and their professional services engineers understood not just Red Hat products but the specific…

This is correct. They still do this. They are the only ones. They go beyond just "hey, I know of a database that could handle that size" to "why are you storing this here? this is PII, this is analytical data, this is business data, here's a proposal for doing this with open source at scale". It's not just "buy our product". They go above and beyond the needs of the product to the needs of the customer, like you said…

what happened to SUSE? they were the same. are they no more?
Post reply on HN