Live data from Hacker News

I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

jeffgeerling.com

161–170 of 410 posts

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#161
RHEL has a major ecosystem advantage related to drivers that they may not be aware of. They risk ruining this, as I will try to explain.

At the time industry started to take Linux seriously, RHEL was the dominant distro. As a result, and by accident, RHEL+derivs became the primary target for commercial hardware drivers. As an example - it's easier to get obscure low-latency network and packet-capture cards working on RHEL+derivs than on other systems. RHEL+derivs is the assumed standard when you talk to firms that make that kind of stuff.

As a result of driver support, redhat derivs became the standard for commercial deployment. Redhat did not get this volume. The deployed volume is with all the Centos/Rocky/Alma that is deployed in hedge funds, prop firms, oil search grids, etc.

As I see it, this driver situation is the real value in the Redhat ecosystem. The userland is a bit of a mess, the package manager does not impress me. But I deploy RHEL-derivs because drivers work with no hassle.

If Redhat were able to cancel the derivatives, they would trigger the tipping point where industry ceases to treat RHEL+derivs as the standard driver target. Firms using centos on five thousand servers are not suddenly going to start paying USD 350 / year / server where previously they paid nothing. They will move to Debian, and eat the pain of the transition. Commercial driver culture would swiftly follow. That culture change would not take years. It would take days.

I think Redhat's per-server sales model is naive. USD 350 / year gets you a license with no support. This probably gets some commerce from small-business, and a bit more from firms with traditional service expectations.

But is that really where the opportunity is?

When I set up a data-centre presence, I want to PXE-boot each server. This way I can modify the system image for the grid by creating a new PXE image and rebooting hosts. Getting to this setup is fiddly. I wish there was an off-the-shelf solution from Redhat that did a good job of it. USD 2000 per year per site per 100 servers, including support for the PXE device itself. Redhat could coexist with the derivs if it took this path. If they built this as an appliance, that product could become ubiquitous like firewalls and network switches.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#163

I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive. I'm unhappy about this decision by Red Hat, and am also very concerned about the trajectory RH is on. For the first time in well over a decade I'm re-evaluating which ecosystem to base all my work (and the company(ies) for who I make decisions). I don't believe that Red Hat's leadership cares a whole lot about open sour…

This is like the tech communities version of the Ellen drama. Ellen is far from the worst person in Hollywood and Red Hat is far from the worst ISV, but because they’ve built their image on being the “good guy” anything they do contrary to that elicits a strong emotional reaction.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#164
post #7

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?

> Canonical's Ubuntu Why the suggestion for Canonical? They've also been doing shady shit again recently. For instance, adding advertisements for their products to existing cli tools. I haven't been tracking SUSE for a few years now, but they're they're not doing shady shit? Hopefully there's at least one good option in commercial-linux-land. ;)

Probably because Canonical does promise to make their software freely available to the whole world.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#165
post #101

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)

No, it won't unless the customer is also using upstream stuff elsewhere. But it will close an avenue of new customer acquisition. Can't say how often, but it happened that someone needed support for an upstream software (which is a big no-no) and ended up buying a downstream license.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#166
post #130
post #7

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?

The issue here is the GPL and what does it provide, freedom wise , for a system that is built of other contributors who also released their work under the GPL. It is a bit funny to me that red hat wants to kill off clones of their os and plenty of people think this is ok and seeing it as freeloading because red hat gives back which I would say they may be required based on the GPL and their business model. Could the…

Genuine question (I'm not intimately familiar with all the terms of the GPL) -- does the GPL require you to release the source code to anyone and everyone (even non-customers)?

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#167

I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive. I'm unhappy about this decision by Red Hat, and am also very concerned about the trajectory RH is on. For the first time in well over a decade I'm re-evaluating which ecosystem to base all my work (and the company(ies) for who I make decisions). I don't believe that Red Hat's leadership cares a whole lot about open sour…

Regardless whether Red Hat said it or not, why not call it what it is? Not every CentOS user was a freeloader and the same is true for its spiritual successors. However, a large majority of CentOS users were not contributing back in any way to CentOS or the larger FLOSS community. Secondly, a substantial chunk of those users used CentOS because they wanted all the benefits of Red Hat EL without paying for it. That pr…

> a large majority of CentOS users were not contributing back in any way to CentOS or the larger FLOSS community

So what? There is no obligation to contribute back in any way.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#168

I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive. I'm unhappy about this decision by Red Hat, and am also very concerned about the trajectory RH is on. For the first time in well over a decade I'm re-evaluating which ecosystem to base all my work (and the company(ies) for who I make decisions). I don't believe that Red Hat's leadership cares a whole lot about open sour…

> I don't think this sort of emotional, loose-facted "hot take" style response is real constructive

I do. A basic pedagogic principle is that conditioning works better the closer the consequence is to the action.

They should be afraid of backlash at every turn.

People must be ready to actually walk away, otherwise you get into a Reddit-type situation in which everything ends up just like before.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#169
To quote Jeff:

> Here's how it used to work:

> Red Hat would grab a copy of Linux They would add magic sauce that makes it Red Hat Enterprise Linux

> They would release a new version.

> They would update a source code repository with all the data required to build it from scratch

A few remarks. The "add magic sauce" part is gone, all the secret sauce, or black box machinery is out in the open in CentOS stream. Red Hat no longer does any RHEL development behind the corporate firewall, and does everything out in the open in CentOS Stream. There is one caveat for security CVEs, but effectively those go into CentOS Stream and RHEL at the same time when the CVE embargo expires.

What this comes down to is wilfully ignoring CentOS stream. All the clones of RHEL can simply track CentOS stream, and even replicate all the "Secret Sauce" that is the CentOS Stream CI/CD workflow. The process of replicating RHEL is so much easier today than ever before.

Re: I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free has never meant monetarily free. Open-source means you can recompile, and thus maintain after the EOL of the provider, and code secrets aren’t secret. This is already a step above proprietary software. For example: Wordpress themes are OSS. You must pay the gatekeeper, but you can inspect the code. But free lunch is something else. Which OSS developers can also require, I’m not discussing that.

Open source means you can redistribute the code having received it. If you aren't allowed to do so, the program is 'source-available', not open source.

This is very enlightening! Thanks for sharing it. Ok, I can now see how RH might have backed themselves into a corner with the license.
Post reply on HN