121–130 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.
You say that and it feels like Red Hat never contributed a single line of code to any FOSS projects or doesn't hire any developers to work on FOSS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that this is a stupid decision. It will turn people off Red Hat, and at the same time it’s incredibly annoying and inconvenient for a large number of Rocky/Alma/etc users.
> It will turn people off Red Hat Will it turn paying customers off Red Hat? (Honest question)
Why not extend to Fedora? At the risk of starting a distro religious war… After many years away from the RedHat ecosystem I recently tried to stand up Fedora 37 and 38 to test it with Willow Inference Server. After hours and hours of poor and conflicting docs, random stability issues, various additional software repos of questionable quality, etc I gave up and proclaimed it officially unsupported. Why anyone would wa…
"In the immediate term, our plan is to pull from CentOS Stream updates and Oracle Linux updates to ensure security patches continue to be released."
I would be curious to know if Rocky will do the same, and what this will mean for binary RHEL compatibility and the direction of these platforms.
> They used to have edgy ads quoting Ghandi and ... It's funny they used to be so devoted to that Ghandi quote ... It is Gandhi, not Ghandi!
At this point I feel like there's no more blood to be wrung from this stone. Jeff is free to take his ball and go home with it - just like Red Hat, in fact - but I think we're past the "this is notable news" phase and another post from Jeff about his frustrations doesn't really further the conversation.
I don't mean this antagonistically and I realize I am lucky to have this perspective maybe, but all of this just reinforces a thought I've had for a long time, I feel bad for people forced to use these types of enterprise-y Linuxes.
RH / IBM is trying to hit the partner companies of RockyLinux, AlmaLinux and so on. E.g. for RockyLinux there is a company called CIQ which sells enterprise support, which itself may or may not already be a dick move towards RH since they are chipping at their business without really contributing to it.
Why not extend to Fedora? At the risk of starting a distro religious war… After many years away from the RedHat ecosystem I recently tried to stand up Fedora 37 and 38 to test it with Willow Inference Server. After hours and hours of poor and conflicting docs, random stability issues, various additional software repos of questionable quality, etc I gave up and proclaimed it officially unsupported. Why anyone would wa…
Fedoras big strength is the update speed. The problem with distros is that you're always picking an update cycle tradeoff. Debian has decades old versions of packages that they'll backport security fixes into till pretty much the end of time (RHEL also does this but is well, commercially backed while Debian is entirely volunteer driven, which has opened up Debian to maintainer shenanigans a couple of times). Ubuntu i…
It's even more in the middle, Fedora can update to the latest versions of packages as long as its not a major package and its an fairly standalone package. Fedora pulls new kernels as an example.
It's release timetable also suits GNOME, Fedora comes out about a month after every GNOME release, with that version of GNOME.
- If I provided _modified_ binaries
- I also have to provide the sources
That's what's happening now for people that can download the binaries.
What happened before was:
- _Anyone_ could download the sources
(Not a GPL requirement).
So, now, IIUC if you can download the binaries you can download the sources. If you can't download the binaries (not a customer, for instance) you can't download the sources.
The contract termination is not related to GPL in this sense.
Hey I'm the one who wrote that tweet.
Mike, who first noted this on Mastodon, just updated his tweet (toot?) to say that his contacts at Red hat confirmed that this is a bug, the dev Subscription is still limited to 16 servers.
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?