51–60 of 410 posts
[flagged]
I'm curious what features RHEL has over Debian, that make it worth paying for? I used CentOS for years, then switched to Debian, and it's been plain sailing, so I'm wondering what l could gain with RHEL.
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'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 don't think the author is expecting charitable behavior: it's more that Red Hat was deriving extraordinary amounts of value from his work, and was (partially) compensating for that by making his (and others') support for RHEL easier by providing them will access to RHEL. In other words: Red Hat's behavior here is almost certainly going to make end-level support for their OS worse, not better, all for a tiny slice o…
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?
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.
That's definitionally not true. Quoting https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
] if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. ...
] Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, ...
That's why the linked-to essays says "Technically, the GPL allows [a paywall]" from the text.
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?
>Red Hat seems to be upping the limit to 240 sockets per developer as of this writing -- EDIT: I read twitter, seems it may mean number of machines as opposed to open sockets. But a very confusing post. I stopped with RHEL 2 months ago at work, I use Slackware at home. What does that quote mean, if I get a RHEL developer license, am I limited to the number of open sockets ? That almost goes back to the per user licen…
Slackware was my first distro decades ago, and I have lots of fond memories learning Linux with it. How is it these days? What makes it your distro of choice at home in 2023?
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.
Isn't that basically all for-profit software though? not to mention exactly how most of the people on this board have paying jobs? I would argue that it's exactly how the open source ethos works
I'm not sure exactly how much Red Hat contributes to Linux though but if I remember correctly it's quite a bit. Maybe Red Hat making more $$ = more devs. Or maybe this is just a net negative for the ecosystem code-wise (as opposed to just hurting the current users of the forked OSes) as it pushes more devs/software away from a very popular 'platform', reducing exposure, free online support on forums, testing, etc.