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

91–100 of 222 posts

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#91

Post by justsomehnguy »

aftbit wrote: post #68
1letterunixname wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

NB CentOS was given the EoL date in 2020[0]

There is a difference between CentOS and CentOS Stream

https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#92

Post by bonzini »

tsimionescu wrote: post #76
dralley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People used CentOS because it was extremely stable. It was the safest dsitribution to pick for a long-term support version of something, e.g. if you are distributing hardware to customers and you know you will have to maintain support for that hardware for 5-10 years. Companies that want this don't really care about community bugfixing and all that. They're happy with security patches so that their products look good…

They can just use Alma Linux now, Red Hat does not see anything wrong with that.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#93

Post by pjmlp »

Kwpolska wrote: post #88
pjmlp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about Oracle haters is how they ignore that Oracle and IBM stand by Java since the early days, they collaborated with Sun on the Network Computer project, were one of the first SQL vendors to include the JRE on the database engine, provide a GUI based on Swing, JSF framework, JVM implementation, IDE, and so on. They also ignore the fact that Sun also charged money for support, JDK was only available a…

I think that most Oracle haters hate them for their obscenely expensive and often idiosyncratic database product, as well as their legal division being larger than their engineering division. And speaking of databases, the idea of running custom Java code inside the database seems like an abuse of the database. How many people actually use this feature, and how many of them like it (as opposed to having made a bad te…

Plenty, this is no different from running C and Perl, which Oracle did before, what PostgreSQL allows for (which Rust stable support being cheered over here last week), or running .NET on SQL Server.

When performance matters, stored procedures are the way to go, not wasting network traffic and CPU cycles on the client, As it so happens, these additional runtimes are great and safer way to extend PL/SQL, pg/SQL, T-SQL,... than writing C extensions.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#94

Post by hahnchen »

rwmj wrote: post #89

(Note: I work for Red Hat) I'm constantly amazed that people still don't understand why Red Hat makes money, and this article won't enlighten you as it doesn't understand it as well as being full of other incidental mistakes (like their description of CentOS is way off the mark). Red Hat takes Linux and certifies it against all kinds of government, safety, privacy etc standardards, such as PCI and FIPS and numerous l…

Does redhat have customors who don't need government compliance? If so, why do they use red hat?

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#95

Post by rwmj »

hahnchen wrote: post #94
rwmj wrote: post #89

(Note: I work for Red Hat) I'm constantly amazed that people still don't understand why Red Hat makes money, and this article won't enlighten you as it doesn't understand it as well as being full of other incidental mistakes (like their description of CentOS is way off the mark). Red Hat takes Linux and certifies it against all kinds of government, safety, privacy etc standardards, such as PCI and FIPS and numerous l…

Does redhat have customors who don't need government compliance? If so, why do they use red hat?

Once you are the default choice that has other network effects, so yes.

For example if you are a software vendor who needs to ship a proprietary kernel module - think something like software to control a lab instrument - only Red Hat has a credible kernel ABI scheme with the required scale (because of the reasons I gave in GP). So every ISV in this situation specifies RHEL and requires that you run your software on a purchased copy of RHEL for support reasons. And usually the ISV software costs many multiples of the cost of a RHEL license, so it's lost in the noise.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#96

Post by TristanBall »

zzzeek wrote: post #45
nimbius wrote: post #33

modern redhat --and this cannot be stressed enough-- is nothing like old redhat despite IBM's fervent insistance after the acquisition they would remain hands off. The hat killed Centos because some IBM midlevel manager needed to make quota for a bonus, and they didnt stop to realize just how unsuccessful this tactic was for Oracle/MySQL. moderen redhat is carved into about 40 seperate repositories and channels for p…

Hi - I work at Red Hat for the last eight years, long before IBM had anything to do with us, and I cannot stress enough how much IBM is *nowhere* to be seen in not just our day to day engineering jobs, but pretty much not even periodically. I know nobody at IBM, I have no email addresses of anyone at IBM, nothing we get in our inbox (and we get a lot) ever has anything to do with "IBM" in it, I have no links or acces…

Well, there's two very different views of reality.. And one of them appears to be from a very unhappy customer.

Is it possible that different IBM Depts - or IBM regions, are selling Redhat Software/Support without much actual involvement of the Redhat business? Like the might have done in their traditional reseller/consulting/support role?

TBH I actually think it's likely - sales and account execs can probably just tickbox add RH stuff to their package deals, copy&paste the slide deck - and post sale the customer support channel will be the general enterprise support one. IBM are probably very deliberately channelling all first level support through there anyway, same as for everything else - so core Redhat support staff might only get looped in for 2nd and 3rd level issues for those accounts, if at all.

It's quite easy to see that effectively creating two sales/support channels depending on whether you "bought from Redhat" or "packaged from IBM" - but equally it's unlikely to be presented or perceived that way, until it's too late.

I believe you when you say they've been hands off - it's surprising, but I can also see how it would make this kind of situation _worse_, because they're still effectively treating redhat as an "external" provider they resell.

Not that fully integrating the business would make it better of course, probably just different worse ( just based on my experience of corporate mergers, not IBM specific... ).

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#97

Post by IceWreck »

hahnchen wrote: post #94
rwmj wrote: post #89

(Note: I work for Red Hat) I'm constantly amazed that people still don't understand why Red Hat makes money, and this article won't enlighten you as it doesn't understand it as well as being full of other incidental mistakes (like their description of CentOS is way off the mark). Red Hat takes Linux and certifies it against all kinds of government, safety, privacy etc standardards, such as PCI and FIPS and numerous l…

Does redhat have customors who don't need government compliance? If so, why do they use red hat?

They also make Fedora which is the distro of choice for me and hundreds of thousands of others.

And I use RHELlikes (Alma/Rocky) in my homelab just cause its similar to Fedora and Red Hat's documentation is much better than reading random blogs on how to do stuff on Ubuntu/Debian.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#98

Post by rwmj »

froh wrote: post #70
gabereiser wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

SUSE are very much still around, and they have the same successful model as Red Hat, with a more European (specifically German) focus.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#99

Post by IceWreck »

aftbit wrote: post #68
1letterunixname wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I know of companies with millions of servers that switched to CentOS stream instead.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#100

Post by [deleted] »

hahnchen wrote: post #94
rwmj wrote: post #89

(Note: I work for Red Hat) I'm constantly amazed that people still don't understand why Red Hat makes money, and this article won't enlighten you as it doesn't understand it as well as being full of other incidental mistakes (like their description of CentOS is way off the mark). Red Hat takes Linux and certifies it against all kinds of government, safety, privacy etc standardards, such as PCI and FIPS and numerous l…

Does redhat have customors who don't need government compliance? If so, why do they use red hat?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN