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

Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 339 posts

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#21

Post by ghaff »

pjmlp wrote: post #17
Timon3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.

I'd argue that IBM's contributions in that timeframe were more about about validating it from a large business perspective than about technical contributions (that tended to focus on large system performance which wasn't actually that important for Linux taking off).

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#22

Post by kermatt »

a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

> I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

Some growth metric that can't be realized quick enough through innovation (new products or services), so the only recourse is to cut costs or get more revenue from existing products without improving them.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#23

Post by pavon »

BossingAround wrote: post #4

I don't get what's the big deal--essentially the only thing being lost is a pointer to commit that marks the difference between RHEL X.Y and X.Y+1..?

RHEL X.Y isn't a simple snapshot of CentOS Stream X at a specific point. It is a fork of CentOS Stream, with cherry-picks and so on. The specific details of what patches made it into RHEL and when and how to create reproducible builds are now only being provided to customers.

In the past, customers have been able to redistribute the RHEL repos freely. I assume that will remain the case as long as CentOS Stream is open source.

Edit: Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if IBM put some content in the RHEL repo that is under restrictive licenses that couldn't be redistributed just to complicate things, but all the important parts will remain open source, due to close ties to CentOS Stream and Fedora. Rocky/Alma already have to replace trademarks, and this wouldn't be much different, but they would have to obtain access to the repos as customers themselves, or have another customer strip the bad stuff out before throwing it over the fence. We'll have to see how hostile they want to be about it.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#24

Post by kermatt »

pjmlp wrote: post #17
Timon3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.

Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM was.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#25

Post by Fordec »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #14
Timon3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

Yet they're still way older than most tech companies. I'd wager they will outlive 99.99% of those unicorn startups yet.

The Lindy Effect.[0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#26

Post by binary_ninja »

MattSteelblade wrote: post #10

Will this prevent o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ legal derivatives of RHEL?

I would assume the people that actually develop those either already are RHEL customers or they would just pay a single subscription so they can download the code and keep it in sync

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#27

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

chasil wrote: post #20
5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt most RHEL packages use the GPL. They were publishing full source out of goodness of their hearts (or maybe to conquer more market share and then potentially convert some of that into sales if you're more cynical).

The kernel, the compiler, the C library, and the init system have more sway than various packages under BSD, MIT, or other licensing.

It was more about the second part of your comment. Even if they're forced into providing source for the few essential system libraries (plus the kernel), I don't see what it gives you without the rest of the system (most of which is under pushover licenses because we can't learn from our mistakes).

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#28

Post by a_subsystem »

a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

IBM is slowly ruining everything they produce. Their systems are incredibly secure because it's extremely difficult to even run them normally as an operator, much less hack in. The byzantine/circular documentation and downloads pages on their site are woefully inadequate in enabling developers. Web searches reveal little information if you have a problem, as not many people run these systems. You generally have to pay stunning amounts to 3rd party professionals to manage your platform for even what should be relatively simple things like patching (PTFs), OS updates, and language upgrades. They will balk if you tell them they have bugs in their systems unless you can produce code yourself pinpointing the problem. They aren't interested in working with schools/universities to train young people to create fresh workers knowledgeable on their systems. Seems like they are milking the company and coasting until it expires.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#30

Post by zitterbewegung »

Timon3 wrote: post #12
a2tech wrote: post #3

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the quest…

I think you are being very pessimistic. All of their acquisitions are used to fund reinventions but due to their existing mainframe and other support contracts it makes a moat that people have a hard time crossing. I could see Oracle being merged or bought by IBM.
Post reply on HN