Live data from Hacker News

The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

opencoreventures.com

111–120 of 222 posts

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#111
post #44

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…

>A business model is promising to fix a customer's problem, certify their software, and get vendors to support them. This can also be described as assuming liability. Fact of the matter is people don't want to assume liability themselves. If they can pay to get someone else to assume that liability (which Red Hat is happy to do) they will. The rest of the FOSS ecosystem on the other hand is all about assuming liabili…

I've not seen any license accept liability.

"Assume" is a different word, it means implicitly accept. There is no such thing as an implicit clause in any contract.

Definitely willing to be shown otherwise, but I've never seen any vendor accept liability for there product beyond "you can have your money back, we'll take our software back".

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#112

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.

You would be surprised.

Alpine as a base image is perfectly fine; it is a tiny base system after all.

RH base image is also relatively small (compared to full RHEL system). It is also completely useless, as you cannot dnf install anything while building the image, if you do not have access to RHEL repos. If you have to bring in your own packages, you might use Alpine just as well.

I woould also contest your claim about "happily pay". No, the payment goes after the sales folks do their job, which isn't easy either. There's nothing "happily" about it.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#113

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…

4. We have all the in-house support staff we need and only want to use the self-support license, but since we're a service provider we were forced into the CCSP program where each license costs a lot more.

Forced into how? can you please elaborate?

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CentOS has always had minor updates. Current support for CentOS Stream releases (Stream 8 and Stream 9) is comparable to old CentOS major releases.

Not really; ABI and kABI breaks came only with minor releases. With Stream, they come randomly.

Also, Stream support period is much shorter than the corresponding major release (e.g. Stream 8 till May 2024, RHEL 8 till 2029).

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you a customer though? I.e. have you paid any money to RedHat?

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#116
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…

And note; it is written by Sid Sijbrandij, who is the CEO of GitLab.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#117
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

While I agree in principle, in practice to me it feels like the tooling just isn't there.

Testing and debugging is a bit more difficult than with other languages (e.g. even using breakpoints and stepping through code), things like logging typically don't have pleasant implementations (e.g. log shipping), the discoverability and even version control of the code also tend to be worse, among other things. That's even before you get into building around the particular runtime that you're provided with, trying to get a grip on dependency/package management, automated CI deploys, rollbacks, monitoring/health checks, local development environments and so on.

My experiences might be the opposite of some folks, but I recall working on a system where most of the logic was implemented in the database packages and something like Java was used just as a glorified templating solution to serve a webapp. The performance was great, but actually working with the codebase was an utter nightmare, so it's not worth it in my opinion. That's like choosing to write a webapp in Assembly just because it's faster.

For example, look at the JetBrains survey, where they asked some questions about databases: https://www.jetbrains.com/lp/devecosystem-2021/databases/

  Do you debug stored procedures?
  47% Never
  44% Rarely
  9% Frequently
  
  Do you have tests in your database?
  70% No
  15% I don't know
  14% Yes
  
  Do you keep your database scripts in a version control system?
  54% Yes
  37% No
  9% I don't know
  
  Do you write comments for the database objects?
  49% No
  27% Yes, for many types of objects
  24% Yes, only for tables
If half the people don't debug their code, three quarters don't test their code, almost half don't use version control and about half don't bother writing comments of any sort, that's the kind of code that I don't want to be working with and would advise others against going for that approach. While we can talk about the fact that these things can be done, the fact that they're not, is evidence enough that the community just isn't there yet.

Use databases for what they're good at (including some in-database processing, like reporting), but don't try to do everything in them.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#118
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?

Long term support and ability to have someone on the line when it breaks.

Not everyone (probably not many too) have experts that will track a kernel bug or know how some obscure interaction works.

If you have knowledgable people in-house the RHEL is essentially useless and WILL actively make your life harder compared to just installing Ubuntu or plain Debian as they like to mess up and segment software that normally would be in same repo... but if you don't, and "just need a software that happens to run on Linux", it's cheaper to pay for few servers than hire top level Linux expert.

When we used it many of the "wait, this doesn't work like in vanilla Linux" could be traced to some RHEL engineer changing stuff to work for their enterprise customers.

Like we had audit fail on too old SSH encryption modes enabled. The encryption modes that were disabled and deprecated in that version of SSH but Redhat brought it back with a patch, presumably to support some legacy environments of their customers.

They also do some utter mess with openssl, like removing a bunch of EC curves and various FIPS-related stuff of dubious security impact, re-adding sha1 support and bunch of other stuff

http://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/BaseOS/source/tree/...

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#119
post #116
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…

And note; it is written by Sid Sijbrandij, who is the CEO of GitLab.

Thanks, I didn't make that connection. It explains a lot about why Gitlab are losing money hand over fist at the moment.

Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat

#120
post #45
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…

> as far as Podman it's all I use for all of my server environments and I like it a lot better than Docker. It's simpler without all the weird "Dockerish" things getting in the way. Not having a monolithic server hang the whole machine due to a misbehaving container is well worth it.

Podman-compose was feature-lacking and beta even when podman already had its 3rd major release, while the communitcation was that "Podman is a drop-in replacement for Docker". It just wasn't a drop-in at all for all compose users. People either stopped considering Podman or enablded the socket daemon, so that they are still able to use docker-compose. But this goes against the design ideas podman had.

Feels as half-baked as Ingnition, which also still feels very bare-bone, as if there's no financial interest to enhance it further.

Post reply on HN