Live data from Hacker News

I'm Done with Red Hat (Enterprise Linux)

jeffgeerling.com

181–190 of 410 posts

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

#181

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…

If you don't mind, what makes more niche hardware drivers work / build better against RHEL?

I suppose RHEL uses basically the same kernel, with patches that don't alter its interface too substantially. So I presume that a driver in source form, or even partly in binary blob form, should build and work approximately equally well with any stock kernel.

Beside the driver developers apparently using RHEL / CentOS (so on them the drivers are known to work), what am I missing?

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

#182

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 Ha…

Let me preface this by saying, Jeff owes Red Hat nothing and he's free to stop "supporting" RHEL for any or no reason at all.

That said, "grab a copy of Linux" seriously, gloriously, hilariously handwaves away so many things that Red Hat does to create a RHEL release.

Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together, helps partners certify software against it, etc. etc. etc.

It's true, Red Hat doesn't "own" the Linux kernel, but it's done a ton to help develop it over the years. But RHEL is not merely the kernel nor any single upstream. RHEL is a product that comprises thousands of packages all tested together and then released as a supported product.

What Red Hat is trying to guard is not the source code to any single or even groups of projects. It's trying to preserve and capture the value it created from all those parts. Coincidentally, that value is what businesses, competitors, and the community are clamoring for and not the source code alone.

They want that single point-in-time snapshot that everybody agrees on as a de facto standard because the overall community has never been able to agree on another workable standard that would allow targeting applications across the board. And that standard has a name, and it's RHEL. And it belongs to Red Hat.

You can have all the pieces and assemble them yourselves if you like. But nobody is entitled to certify it as (officially or unofficially) RHEL except Red Hat.

If that angers you, I heartily encourage folks to build Debian up as the standard we all certify against. Or start your own business that overtakes Red Hat and earns the place RHEL has today.

Mark Shuttleworth took potshots at Red Hat's business model with RHEL for years, and it seems to me that they're doing a very similar thing now with Ubuntu Pro by holding back updates to packages after 5 years and charging for updates to the Universe and Main repos.

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

#183
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pretty sad. Red Hat should be optimizing for "maximum number of dollars over 10 years", not "maximum control over RHEL-compatible distribution". The second goal leads to more support for their competitors, and ultimately less people buying Red Hat subscriptions. Anecdotally, we'll have to support more Linux varieties instead of comfortably mandating RHEL-compatible.

None of the people who hold IBM stock will be holding it in 10 years. None of the executives at IBM will be there in 10 years. Why would they bother?

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

#184
post #58
post #35

>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…

> I use Slackware at home. 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?

From my end user perspective Slackware 15.0 works fine - up to date(ish) packages with what might be described as 'conservative' (old school) administration. For server use it might be best to have a look at the Slackware forum...

https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/

and perhaps post a few questions once you have evaluated the basic OS.

Build scripts for software outside of base is at

http://slackbuilds.org/

There are various third party scripts for automating installation for software outside of the base.

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

#185

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…

So you tried to run your app on it and ran into trouble, and you conclude that Fedora is an unstable hunk of shit? Also, this attitude that Fedora is just a tester for a commercial product is absurd. I suppose this is the same logic that makes CentOS Stream just a "beta" of RHEL (but strangely, these same people don't consider RHEL a "beta" for old CentOS even though consistency would demand this). Anecdotally, I've…

Same, I distro hopped for a while across various ubuntu and ubuntu derivatives, always ran into weird issues, stability problems, etc (and still do at work where we use ubuntu). Installed fedora eventually and have been using it ever since, outside of a packagekit bug like 7 years ago that didn't clear the cache and ate my disk space, it's been pretty smooth sailing.

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

#186
post #182

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 Ha…

Let me preface this by saying, Jeff owes Red Hat nothing and he's free to stop "supporting" RHEL for any or no reason at all. That said, "grab a copy of Linux" seriously, gloriously, hilariously handwaves away so many things that Red Hat does to create a RHEL release. Red Hat pulls together hundreds or thousands of upstreams to create RHEL, participates in many of them, tests all that together , helps partners certif…

I think the main thrust of all of this is to de-commodify Linux. To make RHEL really be in people's minds it's own operating system outside of Linux. It's hard to do when it's really just a ball of generic open source components. Hence, this hostile behaviour. They don't want to be Linux, they want to be RHEL and ask not about the man behind the curtain.

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

#187

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…

Don't underestimate the impact that even someone using CentOS and not contributing back can still have. It's still a person or group of people learning the Red Hat way. Lots of people (myself included) started on CentOS, and later bought RHEL when the need came up because I was already super familiar with RHEL because of my years on CentOS.

Increasing proliferation of usage is a huge factor in driving growth.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

License situation is still unclear to me. GPL explicitly does not allow to forbid further redistribution. RedHat does that. I'm not a lawyer, but from a layman PoV this seems sketchy.

I'm not going to analyze if this is illegal or not (I don't think it is). It has been discussed elsewhere already. But even if it where illegal, the only people in a position to sue would be the contributors of the upstream projects that get packaged into RHEL. And I don't see anyone having the appetite for that. I contribute a lot to QEMU and there I'm practically working side-by-side with redhat devs. They contribu…

Don't think of it as suing your coworkers, think of it as suing your coworkers corporporate overlords?

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is exactly what I said. The license does not require you to contribute back. The license also does not require Red Hat to give you the source code, unless they distribute the binaries to you (through their subscription service).

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

#190
post #99

Some reasons why Stream is not replacement for Centos alike (Alma, Rocky, ...). 1. Stream can't be used as base to build el-compatible packages. There is no any guarantees Stream doesn't break ABI compatibility. 2. Stream has no large (several years) support cycle and can't be used as a stable system. Yes, there is a big community who don't need a paid licensed support from a RH and ready to help with bug reports and…

How long typically do packages percolate in Stream before making their way to EL?
Post reply on HN