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

221–230 of 339 posts

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#221

Post by jacooper »

jmclnx wrote: post #39

I find it hard to believe RHEL will get away with this. I hope the Linux Foundation weighs in, but it seems to have been bought by IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and many other large corps. All the drama in Linux with Wayland, RHEL sponsored init, snap/flatpak and now IBM/RHEL has been causing me to seriously evaluate the BSDs. I have been doing that for a couple of years. I would be fully on OpenBSD now, but the hardware I…

What drama with Wayland or flatpak? Its what the community has decided, every distro except Ubuntu has adopted flatpak. And Wayland is the default for both KDE and Gnome.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#222

Post by chasil »

ilyt wrote: post #206
chasil wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has a few add-ons. The "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel" includes full btrfs, extensive device support (that is removed from the stock kernel), is tuned for the eponymous database, and is always more current. There are several scenarios where it is very attractive. Oracle bought K-Splice several years ago, which was the first rebootless patch solution for Linux. It's only available with a premium license; Kernelcare…

> The "Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel" includes full btrfs, extensive device support (that is removed from the stock kernel), is tuned for the eponymous database, and is always more current. There are several scenarios where it is very attractive. I'd never go for btrfs in anything enterprise. But it does annoy me how RHEL moves normal open source software to the separate repos that are available with extra support pa…

It also annoys me to great extents when Red Hat removes support for SAS raid cards that are perfectly usable.

Oracle fixes that.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#223

Post by rrauenza »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #34

The comments there are insightful and actually make me think this is the right move: > Since the earliest days of Linux or MySQL, there were companies set up to profit from others’ contributions. Most recently in Linux, for example, Rocky Linux and Alma Linux both promise “bug for bug compatibility” with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), while contributing nothing toward Red Hat’s success. Indeed, the natural conclusi…

Prusa has made a similar statement regarding their open source 3D printers. A lot of cheap knock offs leveraging their work …

https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-prin...

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#224

Post by scj »

ilyt wrote: post #203
phpisthebest wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, No ... no they are not >>despite the philosophical differences. And those differences are HUGE and make them incompatible

Yes, not making it ridiculously easy for corporate to make money off someone's else work without giving anything back is a huge difference. I don't really get why people are for non-copyleft licenses. LGPL is fine license.

https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#226

Post by disordinary »

xyst wrote: post #80
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #34

The comments there are insightful and actually make me think this is the right move: > Since the earliest days of Linux or MySQL, there were companies set up to profit from others’ contributions. Most recently in Linux, for example, Rocky Linux and Alma Linux both promise “bug for bug compatibility” with Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), while contributing nothing toward Red Hat’s success. Indeed, the natural conclusi…

Yup. One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison. I avoid anything Oracle. Their licensing model is hell. Their products are usually terrible compared to competition. Cloud products are subpar. Products tend to require a support contract since it’s proprietary dogshit. Some tidbits of Oracle and Larry Ellison (founder, CEO): - in the early days of Oracle DB, it was benchmarked and compared against other RDBMS and Oracle DB…

Oracle is now in the keep customers locked in business rather than the get new customers business.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#227

Post by ndiddy »

danjoredd wrote: post #149
soraminazuki wrote: post #75

I wish this encourages companies to look for more alternatives to RHEL and its clones. There are certainly cases where the stability of RHEL makes sense. But too often teams use them when they need latest versions of software, resulting in pointless packaging work. The worst part about the packaging work is, the tools used to create RPM packages is showing its age. RPM macros, the language for describing packages, is…

I just use Fedora. When I used Red Hat briefly, I didn't notice any major differences between the two except one is the "base" of Red Hat. I can get pretty much whatever I need through dnf or flatpak. I get that Red Hat has support, but otherwise for regular consumers like me I am not sure why I would go for a Red Hat clone when Fedora exists.

Red Hat is valuable for situations where you want to leave a computer running for 10+ years and not have to worry about updates breaking anything. If you are fine with doing a full OS update every 6 months and always want the latest and greatest features, you're not in the target market.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#228

Post by markhahn »

sigg3 wrote: post #127
jsiepkes wrote: post #118

Here are the meeting notes from the RockyLinux people on this subject: https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/resf-rocky-linux-git-c.o-chan...

Now that is what I would call a shady meet. Parasites indeed and spirit too. I'm actively removing their stuff from wherever I can from now on.

very droll!

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#229

Post by tristan957 »

jzb wrote: post #170
tristan957 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fedora is pretty independent of Red Hat, especially since Red Hat fired the Fedora project lead.

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat and many of its developers are employed by Red Hat. Much of the work in Fedora is done by Red Hat. Red Hat did not fire the FPL. They laid off the Fedora Program Manager, which is a different role entirely. I would still say that was a lousy decision, but the FPL is a very different role that goes back a very long time and AFAIK remains filled by Matthew Miller. I've seen the two roles…

How many is many?

Thanks for the correction on the title.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#230

Post by t0astbread »

voidz wrote: post #78
RedShift1 wrote: post #51

Looks like this will be the end of the road for RHEL based distros for me... I love using AlmaLinux, always super stable and everything just works (at least for what I use it). I guess the next best option will be SUSE?

NixOS.

Just as a word of warning (because I can't tell if this is satire): NixOS does not provide the same experience as a typical Red Hat or Debian-derived distro. It's a vastly different paradigm where your system (including its configuration, packages, etc.) consists (almost) entirely of the output of a program you write in a functional language.

I think it's phenomenal and worth a try (or multiple; I didn't get it the first or second time but now I wouldn't want to go back to something else). But if you go in expecting a traditional Linux distro, you will be disappointed/confused.

Post reply on HN