291–300 of 339 posts
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.
It’s a fairly recent thing though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'm not sure I'd agree with their analysis, but they're clearly free to make the decision. If larger companies can run CentOS in production, they also can run Debian or any other distro without a support contract. They could even use a competing loss leader distro like OpenSuse Leap.
Yes, they could. But they (often) don't. The certification / training ecosystem that exists around RHEL has a lot value, even if a lot of folks like to handwave it away. The engineering that goes into RHEL and the very predictable lifecycle has a lot of value, too. I'm not going to say that Debian or SUSE aren't equally good, engineering-wise, but it seems like a lot of large companies have chosen RHEL clones over De…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they could. But they (often) don't. The certification / training ecosystem that exists around RHEL has a lot value, even if a lot of folks like to handwave it away. The engineering that goes into RHEL and the very predictable lifecycle has a lot of value, too. I'm not going to say that Debian or SUSE aren't equally good, engineering-wise, but it seems like a lot of large companies have chosen RHEL clones over De…
Many companies just needed some linux. So, choosing between Debian and Centos was pretty much choosing between rpm and apt. Many companies were not choosing between the commercial RHEL and Centos to begin with. Now they are just fine with just containers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
FsF have been taken over by corporatists from the open source movement and is shell of it's former self
It was like this at least 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is only true it RHEL was self contained OS Project with no Upstream sources itself... That is not the case, RHEL is not possible with out the wider ecosystem, and to say Rocky Linux is a "dirtbag" for repacking RHEL, would be like saying RedHat is a "dirtbag" for packaging any number of free software projects they consume into their product. It completely antithetical the free software movement for which Linux i…
> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The vilification of GPL and AGPL as ”not free in the truest sense of the word”, the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic is a testament to how corporate rebranding efforts have succeeded in replacing free…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However it is perfectly on brand of the "Open Source" corporatist movement that seems to be supplanting free software This has been happening on HN too. The vilification of GPL and AGPL as ”not free in the truest sense of the word”, the usage of RMS and his personal image to label the free software movement outdated/fanatical/toxic is a testament to how corporate rebranding efforts have succeeded in replacing free…
I think you mean anti-copyleft. Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same, despite the philosophical differences. The issue here is against the copyleft (GPL and AGPL).
* the term "open source" predates the term "free software" in the FSF sense
* "open source" was proposed as a synonym for "free software" in the late 90s
* liguistically, the term "free software" emphasizes freedom, while "open source" emphasizes source-available
* there is no law mandating everyone use OSI's definition of "open source"
* consequently, there is ambiguity in the term "open source", ambiguity exploitable by those who want the social cachet of free software but are not philosophically aligned with it
* there is ambiguity in the term "free software" as well but don't worry, if they mean it in the FSF sense they will certainly take the time to explain
I humbly submit therefore that the GP framing is essentially correct, that RMS was right not to endorse the term "open source", and that whatever OSI says the term is philosophically compromised and should be "considered harmful".
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.
But the short version is Wayland does do everything I need, plus it is Linux specific.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has been a thing for the last 5 years at the very least.
Red Hat recently turned 30 years old as a company. So yeah, 5 years is pretty recent, unless you started using linux last week.
If you have a source with the original announcement, by all means share it.
EDIT: found an announcement of march 2016 so we are talking +7years at least.