21–30 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Red Hat is a for-profit company ... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. What you're missing is how the open source ethos works.
>... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. the irony of Rocky, Oracle, and etc just flat out ripping off Red Hat.... which is the exact move that caused this change lol
Is this a clickbait title? Or do I misunderstand the word enterprise? They are not done with using Linux for "a project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort." or "a business or company." They are no longer going to use a specific version of linux that was made by "a business or company." Do people really care that much about linux distros? Between 2 decades of personal use and a few year…
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the name of a product. Geerling supports a massive collection of Ansible playbooks, which goes pretty far beyond anybody’s personal use of Linux and would explain why this is a bigger deal than you or I ditching support for a distro.
I would not have cared if it said 'I'm done with red hat enterprise linux'
I took it as 'I'm done with enterprise linux'
What I'm having trouble understanding is the overwhelming use of IBM-related anecdotes (regardless of historical truthiness, and I'm not making any claim that it's wise or unwise to be wary - that's to each their own), reframed statements painted to appear like Red Hat's made brash statements about its community, and the general gall needed to make statements such as "tell your employees to stop [doing a thing]".
I get that this event may have felt like a violation of trust, and that a violation of trust probably hurts the most. To that end, I suppose emotional responses make sense. But it would have been significantly less cognitive load (on ones self, as an open source maintainer/contributor) to just pull your support and move forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re missing the fact that they are pedaling GPL software, and thus they are inclined to be offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally.
I'm asking this non-facetiously: Is there a wikipedia page or a written record of all the people/corps who've been taken to task in court over a GPL violation, or a large company such as IBM? If yes, was the penalty commensurate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
I'm surprised at all of the drama surrounding Red Hat's decisions. Red Hat is a for-profit company and not a charity. They (Red Hat) don't make any claims of offering RHEL for free to the whole world. If you want that, Canonical's Ubuntu may be a better option for you. Am I missing something?
I mean, they’re within their right to pull support, but people are equally within their right to point out how that is shooting themselves and the RHEL communities in the foot.
On worthwhile investments of time differentiating our offering in InfoSec and Operating Systems,
FWIU (RH) OpenShift (and MicroShift) does k8s containers most correctly in terms of separate SELinux contexts per container, which we should probably have for browser tabs, too. Do (a) browsers, (b) Cloudflare Runners, and (c) Docker WASM runtimes run WASM tasks without container-like process isolation; all as the same user and cgroup and context?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>... built on top of software and labour contributed by others. the irony of Rocky, Oracle, and etc just flat out ripping off Red Hat.... which is the exact move that caused this change lol
[flagged]
[flagged]