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

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#241

Post by [deleted] »

bubblethink wrote: post #218
acatton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish this encourages companies to look for more alternatives to RHEL and its clones. The issue is that there is no alternative. I'm not aware of any distro with its base and all its packages working seamlessly with SELinux enabled. Setting up SELinux in any other distro is, in my experience, an uphill battle. You need to become an SELinux expert to do so. > The worst part about the packaging work is, the tools us…

>The issue is that there is no alternative. I'm not aware of any distro with its base and all its packages working seamlessly with SELinux enabled. Why is this a dealbreaker ? Ubuntu has apparmor which is similar. Maybe selinux is stricter/granular etc., but that's not a business level differentiator. Your company won't fail or succeed because of selinux.

[deleted]

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#242

Post by SemioticStandrd »

ilyt wrote: post #201
NegativeK wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? Red Hat might have the legal right to gate their product, but it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative. I don't really like reductionist blaming, but…

> Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? CentOS wasn't selling support contracts tho. Not that I think anything they are doing is in any way wrong mind you.

To be fair, neither is Rocky.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#243

Post by fariszr »

dijit wrote: post #93
xyst wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yet people are really happy to buy into Oracle because they have a free tier[0] (which, you probably should avoid anyway[1]) Or they argue to exhaustion that MySQL (not MariaDB) is totally fine for production, despite decades the company who now owns MySQL strangling companies to near death over minutia. It boggles my mind. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34503883 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2…

I mean you can just use it as a free VPS, have backups of everything and you should be fine

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#244

Post by palata »

School-Cotton wrote: post #213
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free implies open source. Open source does not imply free.

Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.

It's not about what you consider or not. The Free Software movement is very clear. It is about the freedom of the user: "I, the copyright owner of my own code, allow you to use my code as long as you let your users have (some kind of) access to my code in the product they buy".

Really as an end user, I just don't understand who would be against the Free Software philosophy: either you don't care, or you want as much control as you can on what you buy, but why would you ever say: "I don't want those weird licenses that give me more access to the stuff I buy, I want the other ones that make it completely proprietary and inaccessible".

Of course as a company, you want permissive licenses, such that you can use it for free, but keep it proprietary (because companies like to think that this one bugfix they made is very strategic IP).

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#245

Post by fariszr »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #112
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…

> 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. CentOS was huge towards equipping smaller IT departments, startups and student on the RHEL ways, allowing them to jump on "real RH" when they got bigger. Alma Linux is the same. Rocky Linux does sell support, but even then…

i mean you can do that now with a RHEL dev licenses, you have up to 16 free servers

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#246

Post by School-Cotton »

palata wrote: post #244
School-Cotton wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.

It's not about what you consider or not. The Free Software movement is very clear. It is about the freedom of the user: "I, the copyright owner of my own code, allow you to use my code as long as you let your users have (some kind of) access to my code in the product they buy". Really as an end user, I just don't understand who would be against the Free Software philosophy: either you don't care, or you want as much…

Name a license that is open source but not free software.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#247

Post by School-Cotton »

phpisthebest wrote: post #235
School-Cotton wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name an open source license that you don’t consider free software, then. Note that “source available” (Business Software License, etc.) is not the same thing as “open source”.

Any non-copy left license is not free software.

Wrong according to the FSF:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#248

Post by School-Cotton »

rout39574 wrote: post #160
reidrac wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, go and check: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Then see how many of those are OSI approved licences (thus open source).

Yes, anything the FSF blesses also qualifies as open source. Can you articulate what point you're trying to make, that this supports?

The inverse is also true (barring possibly some insignificant exceptions). Can you name any mainstream open source license that is not considered free software?

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#249

Post by jmainguy »

totallywrong wrote: post #60
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…

IIRC they even have a tool to "convert" a RHEL system into Oracle. And it's not just RHEL, they shamelessly distribute AWX (upstream for Ansible Tower, a product 100% made by RH from scratch) under a different name without contributing anything back. Oracle is truly a parasite of the open source ecosystem. The only outcome I see for these "business models" at Oracle, Rocky, Alma, etc. is increasingly less availabilit…

Redhat bought ansible tower, they did not write it from scratch.

Re: Red Hat cutting back RHEL source availability

#250

Post by NegativeK »

totallywrong wrote: post #238
NegativeK wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rocky and Alma are doing exactly what CentOS pre-Stream did for _six_ years. Now they're frustrated that their decision to kill the CentOS idea didn't stick? Red Hat might have the legal right to gate their product, but it seems really slimy to build RHEL on the work of who knows how many people that publish it for free and then to put road blocks around their derivative. I don't really like reductionist blaming, but…

Take a look at this [1] and tell me one company that comes close. RH has surely made questionable decisions, and yes that seems to be increasing since IBM. But the heat they get is precisely because people are used to having free lunch and then feel it's been taken away. I don't see AWS, Oracle, and others getting the same treatment for benefiting immensely from open source, without contributing much in return. Would…

Without exaggerating, I think I've read maybe two kind comments about Oracle _ever_. Their handling of the Sun IP alone could overfill thread after thread with vitriol.

And I think an analogy is apt. Someone was one telling me that religions that are slightly different (think Protestantism versus Catholicism) lead to far greater strife than religions that are vastly different (like Buddhism and Catholicism.) Maybe people are just louder about the things they care about and feel close to.

Post reply on HN