271–280 of 339 posts
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? 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.
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?
debian stable
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…
Is not this something what Open Source exactly suppose to allow you to do ? I have no love for Oracle but I would imagine one of the reasons Oracle embraced RedHat Enterprise Linux early on was the fact they could fork it if it was in their interest - this was tremendous value for RedHat for a time and helped its establishment as leading Linux for Enterprise. Remember also what RedHat itself "stands on the shoulders…
MySQL got great value
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…
Also in terms of security, Oracle's "forks" are decades behind. They managed to make RedHat unsecure with their own dogshit changes. There are so many CVEs for Oracle specifically that are just bad default usernames and passwords, where they still dispute the CVE reports because it is "intended behaviour". So ridiculous...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of the old saying. > Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM Nobody ever got fired for buying, Oracle or Microsoft or any big incumbent. The same could definitely not be said for choosing any free software. Ironically RHEL is IBM now.
I can imagine people being fired for going with Oracle. Fail to make your budget work 5 quarters in a row and see how long you last. ;) Or wait for a legal case to come up: someones getting fired, wether its you or a scapegoat you sacrifice.
Any org with deep enough pockets to afford Oracle at scale has a deep enough org structure and bureaucracy that those huge wasteful projects produce nothing but promotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Champion in patents per year in tech, Red-Hat, 2nd major Java implementation, one of the few vendors in quantum computing. That alone looks quite alright for a dying company.
Except roll the clock back a bit and your would have been talking about Lotus, Machine Learning, and Unix/PowerPC. And we see what IBM has done with leadership in those areas, as well as a long line of other areas where they somehow managed to turn themselves into a 3rd rate competitor despite being in the right place at the right time. So, you have to ask yourself, for example how its possible that people are fallin…
The RISCv ecosystem is a pipe dream that people will finally get it when they start dealing with major boards relying on extensions, or board designs that aren't as open as the CPU itself.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, neither is Rocky.
https://sam.gov/opp/2e0365ce1e3c4c179b50fb15573d68e4/view
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd have to check if it is still the case but RHEL has provided free developer licenses for RHEL for years (decades?). EDIT: checked and it still exist and allow usage of up to 16 physical or virtual nodes for development " to develop software (including open source software), perform prototyping or quality assurance testing and/or for demonstration purposes.
And those conditions are exactly what the OP meant by a licensing game.
Containers are mostly ephemerals when used for build and test purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so you might have, for example, FreeBSD, which as distributed by the FreeBSD developers is free software , but which can also potentially be used in a proprietary downstream product, which is not free software . The FreeBSD developers did not deny users any of the four freedoms. They just allowed other people to potentially do so. This Venn diagram is FSF's view of the taxonomy: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/…
I was wrong indeed, thanks for the precision :-). So: Permissive licenses are free in the sense that they allow making free software (but they also allow making non-free software). GPLv3 enforces the complete derived work to be free. LGPLv3 says that the particular library should stay free. GPLv2, LGPLv2 and MPLv2 say that the source code (either of the whole derived work or just the library) should stay free, but ti…
That was what I meant initially: in HN there's a strong opinion against copyleft, not necessarily free software.