I quite disagree with two ideas in this article: 1. For me until proven otherwise, RedHat have an OpenCore model, the CentOS shift is too recent to be meaningful. My company literally panicked about their CentOS servers because they didn't want a rolling distro and so decided to switch to something else free for low risk VM (worse I'm afraid) and pay RHEL support for critical applications. 2.There are a shitload of s…
The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
151–160 of 222 posts
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why they created OpenShift which is arguably worth more than RHEL.
Eh, OpenShift is too opinionated to be valuable for the companies that can afford it, and way too expensive for those that might benefit from it vs a cloud based PaaS. OpenShift's biggest problem has always been that it continues to diverge just enough from vanilla k8s to require "OpenShift specific" shit for everything. I don't see OpenShift getting the same COTS lift as RHEL, so in my mind it's still going to be a…
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
That very brief segment of the article pretty much collapsed a decade of time into two sentences, but yes it appears to be denoting the transition from CentOS [Linux] to CentOS Stream.
Right, but I assume the first sentence refers to CentOS and the second sentence of "sunsetting" referring to the end of CentOS and the start of CentOS Stream. After all, CentOS became a part of Red Hat back in 2014 and stopped in 2021. In other words, how was downstream CentOS considered a beta or "a preview of what was coming down the pipe"?
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#154(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…
Next level of the game is to invent the certifications in collaboration with regulators and then sell software that is certified.
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
because compliance is mostly about documentation. glorified checklists. but checklists work (you might have heard about surgeons leaving medical tools in patients, and checklists eliminating this problem, seemingly the dumbest simplest technology, yet it's very powerful compared to the default of nothing) of course the quality of answers matter, but that's on the environment (auditors, regulators, industry best pract…
>but checklists work (you might have heard about surgeons leaving medical tools in patients, and checklists eliminating this problem, seemingly the dumbest simplest technology, yet it's very powerful compared to the default of nothing) These glorified checklists also backfire all the time. With the surgeon it's indeed simple. With software what I see is that certification and process often lessens quality. Why you as…
Thank god it does, so that you cant just yolo it and “move fast and break things” with mission critical infrastructure.
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#156Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 "Podm…
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#158I 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…
one detail > Red Hat created an industry and all of the successful enterprise Linux distros have followed its model to some extent or another (Canonical, SUSE, etc) IBM created that industry, by lifting Linux into their supported platforms portfolio. and the first Enterprise Linux ever was suse linux enterprise for s/390, followed by x86 releases at about the time RH released their first RHEL.
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Re: The Red Hat model only worked for Red Hat
#160(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…
Your comment made me want to say "but COS is certified too!" however now I'm unsure - a quick Google certainly doesn't bring anything up. Why have Google not done this, is the demand not there? Or have they and they just don't document it prominently?
(Note we don't have any PCI requirements as we offload those to the likes of stripe etc)